VU (Virtual Universe)

Virtual Universe (VU) is an epic, story-driven open world game in LivingVR™ powered by artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and blockchain technologies.

About VU (Virtual Universe)

Virtual Universe is a Virtual Reality based video game focused on story-driven open world gameplay. Explorers will be able to be able to participate in “experiences” developed by creators on the platform. The platform aims to combine biometric signals with AI in order to create dynamic, adaptive environments. Entrepreneurs on the platform will be able to become land/shop owners. VU tokens will be used as the in-game virtual currency.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper is segregated into to sections: a concise overview of the platform and a more in-depth discussion of the vision the project. Technical discussion is primarily discussed in layman terms and the business plan of the platform is also lacking. The in-game economics is discussed with fair detail. Content regarding legal considerations is minimal and developments of the platform are not publicly available on GitHub (with the exception of the token smart contracts).

Readability: The document does not obfuscate the document with buzzwords or technical jargon.

Transparency: The document clearly outlines the limitations with regards to the development of the platform. It is stated that the “project must first result in a playable and enjoyable experience for users, rather than a pure technology proof-of-concept”.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan is described with low levels detail (marketing strategy, growth channels, fiscal projects are not apparent). In comparison, the token economics are described with greater levels of detail. The platform will facilitate the development of economic zones that allows users to gain ownership of land in which they will be able to provide goods/services to other users. It is also stated that these establishments will pay dividends. Users will also be able to “hunt/mine for resources” and then modify or combine them to sell or use. However, further details are not include (fee structure).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical details of the platform are primarily discussed in layman terms. The discussion focuses on what the team wishes to accomplish, but does not adequately describe how it will be done. Some references to some technologies/developments that may be suitable are discussed (IPFS, sharding, swarms), but more in-depth discussion (for example, projected storage requirements) is not included.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: It is stated that the token smart contracts have been audited by ChainSecurity. The whitepaper specifies the firms and agencies that are associated with the project. There is a brief (approximately 120 words) that discusses the legal requirements with regards to the platform and the token sale. It is stated that “the legal and regulatory issues surrounding the VU Platform and tokens are complex and undefined at this time”. Currently, the sale of VU tokens are restricted to residents from the Unites States of America and Canada.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation:  The platform differentiates itself from competitors by aiming to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) to create dynamic environments based off of biometric data that is collected from the user in real-time. Additionally, the platform will emphasize story-telling. The team wishes to build a product that allows the user to participate in world-building (akin to Minecraft) with the use of “co-creation”, a “set of creative mechanics that will allow users to create, customize, and optimize their experience inside the game.”

Readiness: Token smart contracts are available on the organization’s GitHub page. With regards to the Virtual Universe platform, a proof-of-concept has been developed (not publicly available). A prototype has been developed for the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap in the whitepaper is presented as follows:
MAY 2018
– Vu.world registration
– Virtual tours of VU
JULY 2018
– Closed beta registrations open
– Virtual tours of VU
AUG 2018
– Auction house (testnet)
– VU testcenter opens it doors
SEPT 2018
– Auction house (mainnet)
– VU free basic player apartments become
available to registered users
OCT 2018
– Distribute VU tokens to users
– VU in-game wallet
NOV 2018
– City 01 District 01 phase 1 plot auction
– VU in-game auction house
DEC 2018
– City 01 District 01 phase 2 plot auction
– City1 district 1 opens it doors for registered users

The roadmap presented on the website is presented as follows:
June 2013
– Company Founded and Incorporated
August 2015
– Tech Coast Angels investment round closed
July 2016
– Tech Coast Angels, Pasadena Angels and Wharton Angels follow-on investment round closed
November 2016
– Prototype released for HTC Vive and Oculus Rift
May 2017
– The COVE I Fund, LLC investment round closed
July 2017
– VU proof of concept completed
September 2017
– Completion of VU conceptual design
December 2017
– VU engine pre-production
April 2018
– VU Token Pre-Sale
June 2018
– VU Token Sale
July 2018
– Release sneak peek demo build
August 2018
– Private BETA launch
September 2018
– Genesis block auction
January 2019
– Public BETA launch

Overall, the roadmaps presented contain major concrete milestones. Most milestones are technology focuses. There are no future milestones than reflect growth of the organization or the platform

Current Position within Roadmap: Notable achievements thus far are primarily the conceptualization of the platform and the development of the prototype (although it is stated that the demo was “not intended to be a prototype of Virtual Universe, but rather a limited scale theme park ride”). The level of complexity of the demo is significantly limited in comparison to the goals of the final product (which is stated to utilize AI for realistic NPCs and dynamic environments that react to the biometric signals of the user).

Feasiblity: A release of the beta version of the product in January 2019 is quite ambitious if the functionality of the beta release is even remotely close to what the team aims to achieve (AI-driven environments with realistic graphics

Blockchain Innovation: Blockchain technology is not the core aspect of the platform. Blockchain technology is simply used to create/distribute tokens. Smart contract functionality is fairly minimal (automate transactions).

Product Company and Team

Market

3.0
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...

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Blockchain Disruption

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base has growth potential. As virtual-reality is still in its infancy in terms of technological development, the audience is sure to grow alongside the technology. The platform would appeal primarily to gamers.

Market Penetration Potential: The VR market is far from developed. An application of VR that has massive widespread appeal has yet to be seen. As a result, the likelihood of gaining significant share of the market is considerable.

Direct Competition: There are numerous projects that aim to implement blockchain technology with virtual-reality. The whitepaper lists a few competitors and discusses the differences of the platforms.

Potential competitors are listed as follows:
Decentraland
TerraVirtua
The Deep
RecRoom
Sansar
VR Chat

The most notable difference between Virtual Universe and similar projects is the goal of implementing AI to develop dynamic environments that react to biometric signals received from the user. In addition, Virtual Universe emphasizes the story-driven aspect of the platform and believes that “MicroStories” will be able to invoke emotion from the user.

Solution Advantage: The two largest advantages of the platform compared to other VR ecosystems that utilize cryptocurrency is the ability to have dynamic environments via AI and biometric sensors as well as the co-creation aspect of the platform which allows users to “create, customize and optimize their experience in the game”. Additionally, VU further differentiates itself from other similar projects by emphasizing storytelling elements via MicroStorie.

Blockchain Disruption: The role of blockchain technology with the platform is listed in the whitepaper as follows:

1. Exchange of value
2. Data storage
3. Identity and privacy – User Bill of Rights
4. Immutable record of ownership (rights management)
5. Automation of transactions (smart contracts)
6. Decentralization of instances

Each aspect is discussed in further detail in the whitepaper. When assessing the benefits presented, the most notable benefit brought forth with the utilization of blockchain technology is the creation of digital assets which are able to be traded/sold. It is explicitly stated that “it is important to understand blockchain and crypto technology in and of itself is not the point of VU”. As such, the level of disruption brought forth by blockchain technology in this context is likely to be overshadowed by the potential disruption of virtual-reality.

Long-Term Vision: The whitepaper presents virtual-reality as a true paradigm shift in user-experience as opposed to leveraging it as a means for investment funding.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.0
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Immersive Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 2014. There is a section in the whitepaper that lists ‘past investors’. However the extend at which the organization has received funding is not explicitly discussed. The following investors are listed as follows:- Tech Coast Angels
– Wharton Alumni Angels
– Pasadena Angels
– The Cove Fund

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are three founders, 12 developers, and 7 advisors presented on the website. It is not clear whether the team plans to expand. There are a few individuals on the development team that are concurrently involved with alternate projects.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles can be found for most team members (one individual includes a link to his GitHub page instead). The level of detail presented on respective LinkedIn profiles varies considerably. Most developers do not indicate direct involvement with the VU project.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The expertise of the founding team is discussed in the whitepaper. One of the three co-founders has extensive experience in the gaming industry. The other co-founders have been involved with multi-million dollar projects, but the nature of the projects are seemingly unrelated to VU (health care, finance, and security). The development team possesses individuals with extensive experience with AR development and have been involved with high-caliber games such as Halo 5, Destiny, and Assassin’s Creed.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The are a significant number of developers on the team, which is appropriate when considering the goals of the project. However, it is not clearly evident that there are individuals that have extensive experience working with blockchain-related projects.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships/launch partners are not evident. However, the organization lists technical/legal services that will be used for the development of the platform which includes:
– Protofire
– IdentityMind Global
– Token Agency
– Campbells
– Squire Patton Boggs
– ChainSecurity

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

1.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: VU tokens are used to purchase in-game digital assets. It is explicitly stated in the whitepaper that “VU Tokens cannot be converted to any other type of real currency outside the game”. The use of blockchain technology does not extend past a means of creating/exchanging tokens. As a result, the creation a custom token is primarily for funding purposes.

Use cases of the token are presented in the whitepaper as follows:
– VU Tokens provide access to exclusive digital assets within VU
– Buying and selling of virtual goods within the VU ecosystem
– Buying and selling of virtual services within the VU ecosystem
– Used as a reward for select in-game accomplishments
– Limited Supply
– Operates on a decentralized blockchain
– Can be sent to any ERC-20 wallet

Overall, the value proposition of the token is fairly weak

Token Economy: Total supply: 1 billion VU

VU tokens are used primarily as a means of exchange on the platform. Use cases are not adequately detailed. It is stated that users will be able to purchase land and operate businesses which will pay dividends (especially for holders of VU tokens).

System Decentralization (besides token): Decentralization is not a core principle in the development of the platform at this time. It is stated that the primary priority is to create a great user-experience as opposed to a a tech demonstration. Over time, the team plans to allow for the platform to become more decentralized. It is not explicitly stated, but it is inferred that data storage will be initially centralized until decentralized solutions are suitable.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: unspecified
Hard cap: unspecified

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): Use of proceeds is not clearly outlined.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented on the organization’s website as follows:
– 45% is for the token generating event (TGE)
– 20% is for the community and user
– 15% is for the VU team, 4% is for partners
– 15% is for the pre-sale
– 1% is for the bounty fund

Vesting periods are not clearly outlined. Unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper is segregated into to sections: a concise overview of the platform and a more in-depth discussion of the vision the project. Technical discussion is primarily discussed in layman terms and the business plan of the platform is also lacking. The in-game economics is discussed with fair detail. Content regarding legal considerations is minimal and developments of the platform are not publicly available on GitHub (with the exception of the token smart contracts).

Readability: The document does not obfuscate the document with buzzwords or technical jargon.

Transparency: The document clearly outlines the limitations with regards to the development of the platform. It is stated that the “project must first result in a playable and enjoyable experience for users, rather than a pure technology proof-of-concept”.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan is described with low levels detail (marketing strategy, growth channels, fiscal projects are not apparent). In comparison, the token economics are described with greater levels of detail. The platform will facilitate the development of economic zones that allows users to gain ownership of land in which they will be able to provide goods/services to other users. It is also stated that these establishments will pay dividends. Users will also be able to “hunt/mine for resources” and then modify or combine them to sell or use. However, further details are not include (fee structure).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical details of the platform are primarily discussed in layman terms. The discussion focuses on what the team wishes to accomplish, but does not adequately describe how it will be done. Some references to some technologies/developments that may be suitable are discussed (IPFS, sharding, swarms), but more in-depth discussion (for example, projected storage requirements) is not included.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: It is stated that the token smart contracts have been audited by ChainSecurity. The whitepaper specifies the firms and agencies that are associated with the project. There is a brief (approximately 120 words) that discusses the legal requirements with regards to the platform and the token sale. It is stated that “the legal and regulatory issues surrounding the VU Platform and tokens are complex and undefined at this time”. Currently, the sale of VU tokens are restricted to residents from the Unites States of America and Canada.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
3.3

Product

Differentiation:  The platform differentiates itself from competitors by aiming to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) to create dynamic environments based off of biometric data that is collected from the user in real-time. Additionally, the platform will emphasize story-telling. The team wishes to build a product that allows the user to participate in world-building (akin to Minecraft) with the use of “co-creation”, a “set of creative mechanics that will allow users to create, customize, and optimize their experience inside the game.”

Readiness: Token smart contracts are available on the organization’s GitHub page. With regards to the Virtual Universe platform, a proof-of-concept has been developed (not publicly available). A prototype has been developed for the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap in the whitepaper is presented as follows:
MAY 2018
– Vu.world registration
– Virtual tours of VU
JULY 2018
– Closed beta registrations open
– Virtual tours of VU
AUG 2018
– Auction house (testnet)
– VU testcenter opens it doors
SEPT 2018
– Auction house (mainnet)
– VU free basic player apartments become
available to registered users
OCT 2018
– Distribute VU tokens to users
– VU in-game wallet
NOV 2018
– City 01 District 01 phase 1 plot auction
– VU in-game auction house
DEC 2018
– City 01 District 01 phase 2 plot auction
– City1 district 1 opens it doors for registered users

The roadmap presented on the website is presented as follows:
June 2013
– Company Founded and Incorporated
August 2015
– Tech Coast Angels investment round closed
July 2016
– Tech Coast Angels, Pasadena Angels and Wharton Angels follow-on investment round closed
November 2016
– Prototype released for HTC Vive and Oculus Rift
May 2017
– The COVE I Fund, LLC investment round closed
July 2017
– VU proof of concept completed
September 2017
– Completion of VU conceptual design
December 2017
– VU engine pre-production
April 2018
– VU Token Pre-Sale
June 2018
– VU Token Sale
July 2018
– Release sneak peek demo build
August 2018
– Private BETA launch
September 2018
– Genesis block auction
January 2019
– Public BETA launch

Overall, the roadmaps presented contain major concrete milestones. Most milestones are technology focuses. There are no future milestones than reflect growth of the organization or the platform

Current Position within Roadmap: Notable achievements thus far are primarily the conceptualization of the platform and the development of the prototype (although it is stated that the demo was “not intended to be a prototype of Virtual Universe, but rather a limited scale theme park ride”). The level of complexity of the demo is significantly limited in comparison to the goals of the final product (which is stated to utilize AI for realistic NPCs and dynamic environments that react to the biometric signals of the user).

Feasiblity: A release of the beta version of the product in January 2019 is quite ambitious if the functionality of the beta release is even remotely close to what the team aims to achieve (AI-driven environments with realistic graphics

Blockchain Innovation: Blockchain technology is not the core aspect of the platform. Blockchain technology is simply used to create/distribute tokens. Smart contract functionality is fairly minimal (automate transactions).

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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:
2.2

Market

Target User Base: The target user base has growth potential. As virtual-reality is still in its infancy in terms of technological development, the audience is sure to grow alongside the technology. The platform would appeal primarily to gamers.

Market Penetration Potential: The VR market is far from developed. An application of VR that has massive widespread appeal has yet to be seen. As a result, the likelihood of gaining significant share of the market is considerable.

Direct Competition: There are numerous projects that aim to implement blockchain technology with virtual-reality. The whitepaper lists a few competitors and discusses the differences of the platforms.

Potential competitors are listed as follows:
Decentraland
TerraVirtua
The Deep
RecRoom
Sansar
VR Chat

The most notable difference between Virtual Universe and similar projects is the goal of implementing AI to develop dynamic environments that react to biometric signals received from the user. In addition, Virtual Universe emphasizes the story-driven aspect of the platform and believes that “MicroStories” will be able to invoke emotion from the user.

Solution Advantage: The two largest advantages of the platform compared to other VR ecosystems that utilize cryptocurrency is the ability to have dynamic environments via AI and biometric sensors as well as the co-creation aspect of the platform which allows users to “create, customize and optimize their experience in the game”. Additionally, VU further differentiates itself from other similar projects by emphasizing storytelling elements via MicroStorie.

Blockchain Disruption: The role of blockchain technology with the platform is listed in the whitepaper as follows:

1. Exchange of value
2. Data storage
3. Identity and privacy – User Bill of Rights
4. Immutable record of ownership (rights management)
5. Automation of transactions (smart contracts)
6. Decentralization of instances

Each aspect is discussed in further detail in the whitepaper. When assessing the benefits presented, the most notable benefit brought forth with the utilization of blockchain technology is the creation of digital assets which are able to be traded/sold. It is explicitly stated that “it is important to understand blockchain and crypto technology in and of itself is not the point of VU”. As such, the level of disruption brought forth by blockchain technology in this context is likely to be overshadowed by the potential disruption of virtual-reality.

Long-Term Vision: The whitepaper presents virtual-reality as a true paradigm shift in user-experience as opposed to leveraging it as a means for investment funding.

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...

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Blockchain Disruption

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
3.0

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Immersive Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 2014. There is a section in the whitepaper that lists ‘past investors’. However the extend at which the organization has received funding is not explicitly discussed. The following investors are listed as follows:- Tech Coast Angels
– Wharton Alumni Angels
– Pasadena Angels
– The Cove Fund

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are three founders, 12 developers, and 7 advisors presented on the website. It is not clear whether the team plans to expand. There are a few individuals on the development team that are concurrently involved with alternate projects.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles can be found for most team members (one individual includes a link to his GitHub page instead). The level of detail presented on respective LinkedIn profiles varies considerably. Most developers do not indicate direct involvement with the VU project.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The expertise of the founding team is discussed in the whitepaper. One of the three co-founders has extensive experience in the gaming industry. The other co-founders have been involved with multi-million dollar projects, but the nature of the projects are seemingly unrelated to VU (health care, finance, and security). The development team possesses individuals with extensive experience with AR development and have been involved with high-caliber games such as Halo 5, Destiny, and Assassin’s Creed.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The are a significant number of developers on the team, which is appropriate when considering the goals of the project. However, it is not clearly evident that there are individuals that have extensive experience working with blockchain-related projects.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships/launch partners are not evident. However, the organization lists technical/legal services that will be used for the development of the platform which includes:
– Protofire
– IdentityMind Global
– Token Agency
– Campbells
– Squire Patton Boggs
– ChainSecurity

 

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
3.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: VU tokens are used to purchase in-game digital assets. It is explicitly stated in the whitepaper that “VU Tokens cannot be converted to any other type of real currency outside the game”. The use of blockchain technology does not extend past a means of creating/exchanging tokens. As a result, the creation a custom token is primarily for funding purposes.

Use cases of the token are presented in the whitepaper as follows:
– VU Tokens provide access to exclusive digital assets within VU
– Buying and selling of virtual goods within the VU ecosystem
– Buying and selling of virtual services within the VU ecosystem
– Used as a reward for select in-game accomplishments
– Limited Supply
– Operates on a decentralized blockchain
– Can be sent to any ERC-20 wallet

Overall, the value proposition of the token is fairly weak

Token Economy: Total supply: 1 billion VU

VU tokens are used primarily as a means of exchange on the platform. Use cases are not adequately detailed. It is stated that users will be able to purchase land and operate businesses which will pay dividends (especially for holders of VU tokens).

System Decentralization (besides token): Decentralization is not a core principle in the development of the platform at this time. It is stated that the primary priority is to create a great user-experience as opposed to a a tech demonstration. Over time, the team plans to allow for the platform to become more decentralized. It is not explicitly stated, but it is inferred that data storage will be initially centralized until decentralized solutions are suitable.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: unspecified
Hard cap: unspecified

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): Use of proceeds is not clearly outlined.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented on the organization’s website as follows:
– 45% is for the token generating event (TGE)
– 20% is for the community and user
– 15% is for the VU team, 4% is for partners
– 15% is for the pre-sale
– 1% is for the bounty fund

Vesting periods are not clearly outlined. Unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
1.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website