Uncloak

A blockchain powered cyber threat solution putting businesses one step ahead of hackers.

About Uncloak

Uncloak (previously called CSaa)Steam is a platform which aims to address cybersecurity by placing “an emphasis upon the strength of the wider community to contribute to finding vulnerabilities through a blockchain based mechanism”. The ecosystem utilizes a dual token model: UCC is based on the EOS blockchain whereas UNC is an ERC20 token. UCC tokens are used to reward hunters (those that find vulnerabilities) and validators. UCC tokens can be traded for UNC tokens, which can be freely traded/exchanged outside the ecosystem and are used to subscribe or purchase services on the Uncloak platform.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.5
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.

5.0
N/A
5 - Clear, comprehensible, coherent, consistent, concise. Professionally organized and well articulated.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Specific technical information and considerations of design and implementation are discussed.
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 problem statement is discussed within less than a page of written content. Technical information is limited and the business plan lacks specific detail. The company GitHub page is not presented. Team information is available on the company website and the whitepaper. Legal content is provided towards beginning of the whitepaper.

Readability: The document is well organized and simple to read.

Transparency: The organization claims to be developing a “true blockchain 3.0”. However, components of the platform will built on top of existing blockchain infrastructure (EOS and Ethereum) as opposed to developing an alternative blockchain solution. The company GitHub page is not available, thus the current stage of technical development (beyond the MVP) is uncertain.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The platform’s revenue model is specifically outlined in the whitepaper and are presented as follows:
– Perpetual Uncloak license
– Monthly subscription
– API access
– Public cloud instance

Fee structures for the aforementioned revenue streams are not outlined adequately.

The marketing strategy is briefly outlined but with vague detail. For instance, it is stated that the organization will “be supported through [their] relationships with a number of large value-added resellers and end user base who are already accustomed to working with [them] on a number of cyber security projects”.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Critical aspects of the platform are discussed fairly broadly. For example, the data sources that will be scraped in order to develop the model used for automatic vulnerability detection are listed as follows: the internet, social media, blog articles, and dark web chatter. Furthermore, it is stated that the organization will use “advanced AI technology to crawl the public and private internet looking for the latest cyber security threats”. It is stated that the search engine is capable of searching through “7,000 independent/forums/chatrooms/metadata/blogs per minute” and tag it appropriately. The specific data sources used are not outlined. Specific detail regarding the technical aspects of the platform is lacking.

The overview of the technology primarily focuses on the features brought forth by the use of the EOS blockchain. Core aspects of the platform are discussed in layman terms.

The architecture is summarized concisely as follows:
– The core Uncloak API cyber threat engine is a multi-layer data pipeline that runs on AWS. Each layer consists of 1 or more servers working in parallel, and can be scaled independently to handle load.
– Layers communicate using Redis queues that provide backpressure to ensure system stability.
– Deployment is handled by Chef, using Amazon OpsWorks.
– A low-throughput version of the entire system runs on each of our developers’ machines, to allow efficient local development and testing.
– The system is primarily written in Python. Both internal and external communication is done in JSON.
– News and user data is stored transiently in Redis and long-term in MySQL on RDS.
– Ontology and knowledge-base information is stored in the graph database Neo4j on TOOK, indexed using Xapian and queried from TOOK over HTTP.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: On the company website, the organization provides the terms of the token sale are outlined thoroughly. The whitepaper begins with a disclaimer which spans approximately 3 pages. Risk factors are discussed towards the end of the document.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.8
Product
Differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: Hunters are those that search for vulnerabilities. Once a hunter has been found, 4 validators are used to check if the vulnerability is genuine. Once confirmed, both the hunter and the validators are rewarded with UCC tokens. This strategy differs from current solutions which “”rely on an isolated and custom-made approach to cyber threat management with limited knowledge sharing between competitive security vendors””.

Readiness: The organization claims to have spend a year developing the MVP. The demo can be found through the company website and was found to be functional at the time of review. The demo is capable of identifying a client’s internet footprint. A simulated attack against an email server is also available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows: Q4 2016 – Development of CSaaS – “Cyber security as a service” application for customers to perform their own security checks Q1 2017 – Strategic Partnership formed with the worlds largest human resources firm to provide cyber security consultancy to public/private sector clients Q2 2017 – Awarded best in class IT consultancy by Wealth and finance magazine Q4 2017 – CSaaS renamed to Uncloak Q1 2018 – Strategic alliance formed with world leading artificial intelligence software developers – Released whitepaper – Building community and strategic relationships. Q2 2018 – Uncloak UNC token crowd sale – Development of cyber threat detection AI engine (beta) Q3 2018 – Development of bug bounty alpha based on EOS – Launch of Uncloak channel partner model – Launch of Bug Bounty community Q4 2018 – Launch of Uncloak bug bounty alpha on EOS testnet – Alpha launch of Uncloak AI engine – UncloakTM general public platform release The development strategy is also presented in the form of a Gantt chart which can be found in the whitepaper. Furthermore, work packages are described, which outline specific deliverables and the expected duration for each package. Overall, specific milestones are outlined with adequate detail.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has developed a working demonstration of the product and have attained a few business relationships.

Feasiblity: Basic functionality of the platform is demonstrated through the MVP is shown on the company website, but the goal to have a fully operational public platform release in Q4 2018 seems fairly ambitious. The release of the public platform during the development of the alpha version of the bug bounty seems strange.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform utilizes blockchain technology for its voting system and token generation/distribution. As such, the platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

Product Company and Team

Market

2.7
Market
Target User Base

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Blockchain Disruption

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

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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeted towards those with IT security expertise and enterprise clients that require information security services.

Market Penetration Potential: It is stated that “Uncloak will be supported through our relationships with a number of large value-added resellers and end user base who are already accustomed to working with us on a number of cyber security projects. We have two partners in the big 5 consultancies, plus access to over 200 resellers through our current business development staff members”. As such, although the organization does not provide specific details with their existing business relations, it is evident that the project has adequate growth channels. The ability for considerable adoption from enterprise clients will require a good development strategy.

Direct Competition: Qualys and Tenable are briefly compared as competitors via a matrix chart with the following assessment criteria: vulnerability scanning, artificial intelligence, and bug bounties.

Other competitors include:
– PolySwarm
– LevelNet
– Hackenproof
– Hacken
– Buglab

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages compared to similar projects are somewhat indeterminate. However, the MVP shows that the team is capable of developing a functional product which has value.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for disruption, as described by the solution, is uncertain. The efficacy of crowdsourcing cybersecurity solutions is indeterminate but if successful, can significantly affect the cybersecurity market, as it is currently a fairly centralized sector.

Long-Term Vision: The deliverables provided with the roadmap are quite comprehensive. It appears that the organization has plans to deliver a competitive produce which has potential to gain hold over a particular market segment. However, competitors are also thoroughly discussed.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.2
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

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

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

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: According to the company’s LinkedIn page, Uncloak is a privately-held organization based in London, England and was founded in 2016.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The company’s LinkedIn page shows that there are 13 employees. According to the company website. The team structure is presented as follows: Tayo Dada | FOUNDER, CEO & CYBER SECURITY EXPERT Phil Jackson | CTO & CYBER SECURITY EXPERT Nicholas Topham | COO & CFO Nick Banks | COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR & CYBER SECURITY EXPERT Steve Bardouille | PROGRAMME MANAGER Toby Abel | AI EXPERT Brendan Sturm | BLOCKCHAIN DEVELOPER Jae Chung | SENIOR EOS DEVELOPER Dean Jackson | SENIOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Vincent O’Neill | SENIOR CYBER SECURITY CONSULTANT Claire Mclaughlin | HEAD OF MARKETING & CONTENT Nicola Sadler | MARKETING MANAGER Lena Bhogaita | HEAD OF OPERATIONS Greg Leffel | BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Ola Dada | COMMUNITY MANAGER Atif Khokhar | SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER Hugh Chambers | CYBER SECURITY ADVISOR Asad Mahmood | AI AND BLOCKCHAIN ADVISOR Steve Godman | AI STRATEGIC ADVISOR Mark Kreitzman | STRATEGIC BUSINESS ADVISOR Sven Radavics | CYBER SECURITY ADVISOR Tan Tran | STRATEGIC INVESTMENT ADVISOR Most team members indicate their involvement with the project. The CEO is currently the managing director for Managed IT Services LTD and the CTO is currently the security practice lead at Capital Employee Benefits. Nearly all key team members and concurrently involved with other projects/organizations.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is accompanied with a bio description (approximately 3-6 sentences). GitHub pages are not provided for those with a technical position. Most key team members provide a sufficient level of information regarding their current/past work experience on their LinkedIn profile.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The CEO/co-founder concurrently manages an IT security company which possesses the following certificates/qualifications: SC clearance, CISSP, ISO27001, Cyber Essentials, CEH and CREST. In the whitepaper, it seems as though a significant portion of the technical development will be outsourced to firms and software solution/consultancy companies. Many of the team members have had experience working with organizations that pertain to cybersecurity.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The is a good balance between individuals with a skill set that aligns with technology and business development. However, there seems to be a lack of individuals with a lack of blockchain development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: It is stated in the whitepaper that the company is working with Krzana, an artificial Intelligence software development firm, as well as Adecco, the “world’s largest human resources firm”.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.0
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
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: Hunters that find vulnerabilities are rewarded with 10,000 UCC tokens whereas validators are rewarded with 1,000 UCC. UCC tokens provide voting rights and can be exchange for UNC tokens, which can be freely traded. In the legal disclaimer it is stated that “possession of UNC does not entitle holders to a dividend or any financial or other type of return from Uncloak Platform or Uncloak”. The justification for the dual token model and the use of two blockchain infrastructures is not adequately discussed.

Token Economy: Total supply: 4.2 billion UNC

UCC tokens will be built on the EOS blockchain whereas UNC are ERC20 tokens. UCC tokens are internal tokens and are used for voting purposes and the platform’s reward mechanism for finding vulnerabilities. UCC tokens can be exchanged for UNC tokens, which are used to subscribe to Uncloak services and can be freely traded on exchanges. Earn/spend mechanisms are outlined broadly.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will utilize a voting mechanism powered by a dPoS consensus protocol (via EOS). Transactions are validated by Ethereum’s consensus protocl (currently PoS). The voting mechanism is specifically outlined. However, UNC tokens do not provide voting rights. It appears that the platform is mostly decentralized.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $6MM USD
Hard cap: $21MM USD

The use of proceeds is not thoroughly outlined but can be inferred from the work packages provided with the development roadmap. However, a specific breakdown is not provided with regards to how funds will be used. Thus, the raise limits are only loosely related to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows:

55% – Research and product development
10% – Community costs
20% – Sales and marketing
10% – Operations
5% – Legal, compliance, accounting

A breakdown of the use of proceeds is not provided.

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

50% – Token sale
15% – Early backers, equity investors, and advisors
15% – Founding team
10% – Retained by Uncloak
10% – Developer fund

Unsold tokens will be burned. The tokens allocated to the team are locked for 18 months (further details with regards to the token sale are limited).

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is discussed within less than a page of written content. Technical information is limited and the business plan lacks specific detail. The company GitHub page is not presented. Team information is available on the company website and the whitepaper. Legal content is provided towards beginning of the whitepaper.

Readability: The document is well organized and simple to read.

Transparency: The organization claims to be developing a “true blockchain 3.0”. However, components of the platform will built on top of existing blockchain infrastructure (EOS and Ethereum) as opposed to developing an alternative blockchain solution. The company GitHub page is not available, thus the current stage of technical development (beyond the MVP) is uncertain.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The platform’s revenue model is specifically outlined in the whitepaper and are presented as follows:
– Perpetual Uncloak license
– Monthly subscription
– API access
– Public cloud instance

Fee structures for the aforementioned revenue streams are not outlined adequately.

The marketing strategy is briefly outlined but with vague detail. For instance, it is stated that the organization will “be supported through [their] relationships with a number of large value-added resellers and end user base who are already accustomed to working with [them] on a number of cyber security projects”.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Critical aspects of the platform are discussed fairly broadly. For example, the data sources that will be scraped in order to develop the model used for automatic vulnerability detection are listed as follows: the internet, social media, blog articles, and dark web chatter. Furthermore, it is stated that the organization will use “advanced AI technology to crawl the public and private internet looking for the latest cyber security threats”. It is stated that the search engine is capable of searching through “7,000 independent/forums/chatrooms/metadata/blogs per minute” and tag it appropriately. The specific data sources used are not outlined. Specific detail regarding the technical aspects of the platform is lacking.

The overview of the technology primarily focuses on the features brought forth by the use of the EOS blockchain. Core aspects of the platform are discussed in layman terms.

The architecture is summarized concisely as follows:
– The core Uncloak API cyber threat engine is a multi-layer data pipeline that runs on AWS. Each layer consists of 1 or more servers working in parallel, and can be scaled independently to handle load.
– Layers communicate using Redis queues that provide backpressure to ensure system stability.
– Deployment is handled by Chef, using Amazon OpsWorks.
– A low-throughput version of the entire system runs on each of our developers’ machines, to allow efficient local development and testing.
– The system is primarily written in Python. Both internal and external communication is done in JSON.
– News and user data is stored transiently in Redis and long-term in MySQL on RDS.
– Ontology and knowledge-base information is stored in the graph database Neo4j on TOOK, indexed using Xapian and queried from TOOK over HTTP.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: On the company website, the organization provides the terms of the token sale are outlined thoroughly. The whitepaper begins with a disclaimer which spans approximately 3 pages. Risk factors are discussed towards the end of the document.

 

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.

5.0
N/A
5 - Clear, comprehensible, coherent, consistent, concise. Professionally organized and well articulated.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Specific technical information and considerations of design and implementation are discussed.
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:
3.5

Product

Differentiation: Hunters are those that search for vulnerabilities. Once a hunter has been found, 4 validators are used to check if the vulnerability is genuine. Once confirmed, both the hunter and the validators are rewarded with UCC tokens. This strategy differs from current solutions which “”rely on an isolated and custom-made approach to cyber threat management with limited knowledge sharing between competitive security vendors””.

Readiness: The organization claims to have spend a year developing the MVP. The demo can be found through the company website and was found to be functional at the time of review. The demo is capable of identifying a client’s internet footprint. A simulated attack against an email server is also available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows: Q4 2016 – Development of CSaaS – “Cyber security as a service” application for customers to perform their own security checks Q1 2017 – Strategic Partnership formed with the worlds largest human resources firm to provide cyber security consultancy to public/private sector clients Q2 2017 – Awarded best in class IT consultancy by Wealth and finance magazine Q4 2017 – CSaaS renamed to Uncloak Q1 2018 – Strategic alliance formed with world leading artificial intelligence software developers – Released whitepaper – Building community and strategic relationships. Q2 2018 – Uncloak UNC token crowd sale – Development of cyber threat detection AI engine (beta) Q3 2018 – Development of bug bounty alpha based on EOS – Launch of Uncloak channel partner model – Launch of Bug Bounty community Q4 2018 – Launch of Uncloak bug bounty alpha on EOS testnet – Alpha launch of Uncloak AI engine – UncloakTM general public platform release The development strategy is also presented in the form of a Gantt chart which can be found in the whitepaper. Furthermore, work packages are described, which outline specific deliverables and the expected duration for each package. Overall, specific milestones are outlined with adequate detail.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has developed a working demonstration of the product and have attained a few business relationships.

Feasiblity: Basic functionality of the platform is demonstrated through the MVP is shown on the company website, but the goal to have a fully operational public platform release in Q4 2018 seems fairly ambitious. The release of the public platform during the development of the alpha version of the bug bounty seems strange.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform utilizes blockchain technology for its voting system and token generation/distribution. As such, the platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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).

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeted towards those with IT security expertise and enterprise clients that require information security services.

Market Penetration Potential: It is stated that “Uncloak will be supported through our relationships with a number of large value-added resellers and end user base who are already accustomed to working with us on a number of cyber security projects. We have two partners in the big 5 consultancies, plus access to over 200 resellers through our current business development staff members”. As such, although the organization does not provide specific details with their existing business relations, it is evident that the project has adequate growth channels. The ability for considerable adoption from enterprise clients will require a good development strategy.

Direct Competition: Qualys and Tenable are briefly compared as competitors via a matrix chart with the following assessment criteria: vulnerability scanning, artificial intelligence, and bug bounties.

Other competitors include:
– PolySwarm
– LevelNet
– Hackenproof
– Hacken
– Buglab

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages compared to similar projects are somewhat indeterminate. However, the MVP shows that the team is capable of developing a functional product which has value.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for disruption, as described by the solution, is uncertain. The efficacy of crowdsourcing cybersecurity solutions is indeterminate but if successful, can significantly affect the cybersecurity market, as it is currently a fairly centralized sector.

Long-Term Vision: The deliverables provided with the roadmap are quite comprehensive. It appears that the organization has plans to deliver a competitive produce which has potential to gain hold over a particular market segment. However, competitors are also thoroughly discussed.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Blockchain Disruption

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

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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
2.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the company’s LinkedIn page, Uncloak is a privately-held organization based in London, England and was founded in 2016.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The company’s LinkedIn page shows that there are 13 employees. According to the company website. The team structure is presented as follows: Tayo Dada | FOUNDER, CEO & CYBER SECURITY EXPERT Phil Jackson | CTO & CYBER SECURITY EXPERT Nicholas Topham | COO & CFO Nick Banks | COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR & CYBER SECURITY EXPERT Steve Bardouille | PROGRAMME MANAGER Toby Abel | AI EXPERT Brendan Sturm | BLOCKCHAIN DEVELOPER Jae Chung | SENIOR EOS DEVELOPER Dean Jackson | SENIOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Vincent O’Neill | SENIOR CYBER SECURITY CONSULTANT Claire Mclaughlin | HEAD OF MARKETING & CONTENT Nicola Sadler | MARKETING MANAGER Lena Bhogaita | HEAD OF OPERATIONS Greg Leffel | BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Ola Dada | COMMUNITY MANAGER Atif Khokhar | SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER Hugh Chambers | CYBER SECURITY ADVISOR Asad Mahmood | AI AND BLOCKCHAIN ADVISOR Steve Godman | AI STRATEGIC ADVISOR Mark Kreitzman | STRATEGIC BUSINESS ADVISOR Sven Radavics | CYBER SECURITY ADVISOR Tan Tran | STRATEGIC INVESTMENT ADVISOR Most team members indicate their involvement with the project. The CEO is currently the managing director for Managed IT Services LTD and the CTO is currently the security practice lead at Capital Employee Benefits. Nearly all key team members and concurrently involved with other projects/organizations.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is accompanied with a bio description (approximately 3-6 sentences). GitHub pages are not provided for those with a technical position. Most key team members provide a sufficient level of information regarding their current/past work experience on their LinkedIn profile.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The CEO/co-founder concurrently manages an IT security company which possesses the following certificates/qualifications: SC clearance, CISSP, ISO27001, Cyber Essentials, CEH and CREST. In the whitepaper, it seems as though a significant portion of the technical development will be outsourced to firms and software solution/consultancy companies. Many of the team members have had experience working with organizations that pertain to cybersecurity.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The is a good balance between individuals with a skill set that aligns with technology and business development. However, there seems to be a lack of individuals with a lack of blockchain development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: It is stated in the whitepaper that the company is working with Krzana, an artificial Intelligence software development firm, as well as Adecco, the “world’s largest human resources firm”.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

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

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

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:
3.2

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Hunters that find vulnerabilities are rewarded with 10,000 UCC tokens whereas validators are rewarded with 1,000 UCC. UCC tokens provide voting rights and can be exchange for UNC tokens, which can be freely traded. In the legal disclaimer it is stated that “possession of UNC does not entitle holders to a dividend or any financial or other type of return from Uncloak Platform or Uncloak”. The justification for the dual token model and the use of two blockchain infrastructures is not adequately discussed.

Token Economy: Total supply: 4.2 billion UNC

UCC tokens will be built on the EOS blockchain whereas UNC are ERC20 tokens. UCC tokens are internal tokens and are used for voting purposes and the platform’s reward mechanism for finding vulnerabilities. UCC tokens can be exchanged for UNC tokens, which are used to subscribe to Uncloak services and can be freely traded on exchanges. Earn/spend mechanisms are outlined broadly.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will utilize a voting mechanism powered by a dPoS consensus protocol (via EOS). Transactions are validated by Ethereum’s consensus protocl (currently PoS). The voting mechanism is specifically outlined. However, UNC tokens do not provide voting rights. It appears that the platform is mostly decentralized.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $6MM USD
Hard cap: $21MM USD

The use of proceeds is not thoroughly outlined but can be inferred from the work packages provided with the development roadmap. However, a specific breakdown is not provided with regards to how funds will be used. Thus, the raise limits are only loosely related to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows:

55% – Research and product development
10% – Community costs
20% – Sales and marketing
10% – Operations
5% – Legal, compliance, accounting

A breakdown of the use of proceeds is not provided.

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

50% – Token sale
15% – Early backers, equity investors, and advisors
15% – Founding team
10% – Retained by Uncloak
10% – Developer fund

Unsold tokens will be burned. The tokens allocated to the team are locked for 18 months (further details with regards to the token sale are limited).

 

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
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:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website