Basic Rating

  • Brixby

  • Brixby is a marketplace that brings together people who want to rent, park, and charge their (electric) cars and asset owners of any size in one app.
  • 3.0

Rating Insights

Brixby aims to develop a decentralized blockchain marketplace that allows for the P2P rental of vehicles, parking spaces, and electric vehicle charging stations, powered by the BRICK token. Brixby also plans to provide an application that offers information on the availability of transportation services, transparency regrading related financial transactions, and tools for efficient transportation asset management. Brixby will provide open source modules that can be built on by anyone who wishes to utilize Brixby services for their business. A self-proclaimed “Uber for parking, car rentals, and charging stations”.Competitors: Darenta, Gitto Project, Toyota Research Institute partnered with Oaken Innovations MIT Media Labs for P2P car-rental blockchain application.
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Allows for P2P car-rental as well as parking and charging.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
3.2
Product

Product

The product is far from ready, but a test app has been created and the team is actively searching for testers. However, there is NO GitHub repo and the main focus of the team currently is to write a smart contract for the ICO. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and a public beta will not be released for several months.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the transportation industry is an essential aspect of life and will continue to grow. There is also an appeal for the decentralization of the transportation industry, specifically rental cars, parking and charging stations.
Competitors: Darenta, Gitto Project, Toyota Research Institute partnered with Oaken Innovations MIT Media Labs for ride-sharing blockchain application.

Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

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

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
2.8
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

The product does not have much to add to blockchain development but it does offer a novel Ethereum blockchain ecosystem. There is some disruptive advantage as it would in theory enable the decentralization of the car rental, parking, and charge station markets, which are most commonly centralized. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is built on Ethereum and creates its own network marketplace/economy, which would require it’s own token, although this is not strictly necessary. The system is mostly centralized, but will involve a decentralized marketplace for users, asset owners, and service providers within the transportation industry. There is a contribution to the blockchain ecosystem here, but only in the sense of utilization, not in the sense of a novel blockchain technology.

Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
Need for Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
4.4
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very visually pleasing, very thorough, and provides a very detailed business plan and potential technology presentation. The whitepaper also provides a detailed review of competition but makes a bold claim of no global competition. The whitepaper begins with a very professional, detailed and explicit legal notice and calls out countries in which BRICK tokens will not be available. One negative of the whitepaper is that it is quite long (62 pages), however, it is very easy to read and the text is supplemented with pictures, tables, and graphs.

Comprehensiveness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
2.6
Roadmap

Roadmap

Two year long development roadmap that is outlined on a quarterly basis and is vague with general milestones, showing the intended development for all aspects of Brixby throughout 2018 and 2019, including launching, testing, and fine tuning of the beta platform. A “detailed roadmap” is to be released about 6-months after the ICO, with details regarding launching in specific cities and promotional efforts. The overall vision is set, however it is a very long timeline for the project with no real use for the BRICK-token besides being a tradeable cryptocurrency for at least two quarters/6-months. The company has developed a testing app and is actively searching for app testers, offering bounties for finding bugs. The core project modules will not be fully developed until after the ICO. NO GITHUB REPO PRESENT. Main focus is to develop a smart contract merely for an ICO and to further develop the roadmap and goals of the project. A lot of work and time still required for the project to be completed. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since BRICK-token will be built upon Ethereum network and will rely on Amazon, Google, and Heroku clouds, as well as fog computing of SONM.

Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
3.2
Compliance

Compliance

The BRICK token does have instrinsic value through its planned usage on the Brixby platform and marketplace. However, for at least 6-months, if not longer, the BRICK tokens’ sole value will be as a tradable financial instrument. The infrastructure will be fully ready only well after the ICO, and it seems that as of now the main focus is to develop the smart-contract for the ICO distribution.
The Brixby team has paid great attention to compliance issues, explicitly stating that legal counsel should be sought prior to participating in the ICO, and specifying many countries where the BRICK token will not be distributed: “We do not offer BRICKs Tokens to citizens or residents of the following jurisdictions (states): USA, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Canada, China, Singapore, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North and South Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen, or Zambia, or to people who do not have sufficient legal capacity to participate in an ICO or purchase BRICKs Tokens according to the applicable legislation of the country of their residence.”
It is hard to say how they will enforce KYC/AML laws, but you do have to register to participate, and when I attempted to register from an American location I did not receive any follow-up correspondence, so it is possible this is automatically accounted for based on geo-location of the IP address.

Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
2.2
Company and Team

Company and Team

An established team with backgrounds in IT, app developement and implementation, software development, UI/UX, business development, marketing, graphic design, and city technology implementation.
Most members have verifiable LinkedIn profiles with credentials, but a few of the core team members have links to Linkedin profiles where no profile actually exists.
Hard to determine when Brixby was founded – roadmap begins at Q1-2018 with plans to hire 20 additional developers for the project throughout the year.
7 Employees. 2 Advisors. Most employees and advisors are committed to at least one or more full-time positions outside the Brixby project.
Positives: The core team and team heads have many years of experience in software, IT and business.
Negatives: No member of the core team has previous experience with cryptocurrency, blockchain or smart-contract projects, and only one advisor has previous blockchain experience.

Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
2.4
Token Sale

Token Sale

Token price during Token Generation Even: 1 BRICK = 0.0005ETH
Issuing volume
– No Soft Cap
– During the Token Generation Event (ICO), no more than 154,523,442 BRICK will be issued in Total
– No more tokens will be issued after Token Generation Event (ICO)
Token distribution
– 70% of tokens will be distributed to the participants of Token Generation Event (ICO).
– 3% of tokens will be distributed in private pre-ICO
– 27% of tokens will be reserved for project team and partners.
– Tokens of founders are not transferable upon ICO completion: locked up for 6 months by a smart contract function.
Fund Allocation Structure
51% Development and support
20% Hosting
19% Management and administration
10% Marketing
Social Media Presence
Some presence mostly on bitcointalk and medium blog post. Light community engagment.

Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Product

The product is far from ready, but a test app has been created and the team is actively searching for testers. However, there is NO GitHub repo and the main focus of the team currently is to write a smart contract for the ICO. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and a public beta will not be released for several months.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the transportation industry is an essential aspect of life and will continue to grow. There is also an appeal for the decentralization of the transportation industry, specifically rental cars, parking and charging stations.
Competitors: Darenta, Gitto Project, Toyota Research Institute partnered with Oaken Innovations MIT Media Labs for ride-sharing blockchain application.

Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

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

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Use of Blockchain

The product does not have much to add to blockchain development but it does offer a novel Ethereum blockchain ecosystem. There is some disruptive advantage as it would in theory enable the decentralization of the car rental, parking, and charge station markets, which are most commonly centralized. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is built on Ethereum and creates its own network marketplace/economy, which would require it’s own token, although this is not strictly necessary. The system is mostly centralized, but will involve a decentralized marketplace for users, asset owners, and service providers within the transportation industry. There is a contribution to the blockchain ecosystem here, but only in the sense of utilization, not in the sense of a novel blockchain technology.

Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
Need for Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very visually pleasing, very thorough, and provides a very detailed business plan and potential technology presentation. The whitepaper also provides a detailed review of competition but makes a bold claim of no global competition. The whitepaper begins with a very professional, detailed and explicit legal notice and calls out countries in which BRICK tokens will not be available. One negative of the whitepaper is that it is quite long (62 pages), however, it is very easy to read and the text is supplemented with pictures, tables, and graphs.

Comprehensiveness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.

Roadmap

Two year long development roadmap that is outlined on a quarterly basis and is vague with general milestones, showing the intended development for all aspects of Brixby throughout 2018 and 2019, including launching, testing, and fine tuning of the beta platform. A “detailed roadmap” is to be released about 6-months after the ICO, with details regarding launching in specific cities and promotional efforts. The overall vision is set, however it is a very long timeline for the project with no real use for the BRICK-token besides being a tradeable cryptocurrency for at least two quarters/6-months. The company has developed a testing app and is actively searching for app testers, offering bounties for finding bugs. The core project modules will not be fully developed until after the ICO. NO GITHUB REPO PRESENT. Main focus is to develop a smart contract merely for an ICO and to further develop the roadmap and goals of the project. A lot of work and time still required for the project to be completed. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since BRICK-token will be built upon Ethereum network and will rely on Amazon, Google, and Heroku clouds, as well as fog computing of SONM.

Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Compliance

The BRICK token does have instrinsic value through its planned usage on the Brixby platform and marketplace. However, for at least 6-months, if not longer, the BRICK tokens’ sole value will be as a tradable financial instrument. The infrastructure will be fully ready only well after the ICO, and it seems that as of now the main focus is to develop the smart-contract for the ICO distribution.
The Brixby team has paid great attention to compliance issues, explicitly stating that legal counsel should be sought prior to participating in the ICO, and specifying many countries where the BRICK token will not be distributed: “We do not offer BRICKs Tokens to citizens or residents of the following jurisdictions (states): USA, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Canada, China, Singapore, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North and South Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen, or Zambia, or to people who do not have sufficient legal capacity to participate in an ICO or purchase BRICKs Tokens according to the applicable legislation of the country of their residence.”
It is hard to say how they will enforce KYC/AML laws, but you do have to register to participate, and when I attempted to register from an American location I did not receive any follow-up correspondence, so it is possible this is automatically accounted for based on geo-location of the IP address.

Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Company and Team

An established team with backgrounds in IT, app developement and implementation, software development, UI/UX, business development, marketing, graphic design, and city technology implementation.
Most members have verifiable LinkedIn profiles with credentials, but a few of the core team members have links to Linkedin profiles where no profile actually exists.
Hard to determine when Brixby was founded – roadmap begins at Q1-2018 with plans to hire 20 additional developers for the project throughout the year.
7 Employees. 2 Advisors. Most employees and advisors are committed to at least one or more full-time positions outside the Brixby project.
Positives: The core team and team heads have many years of experience in software, IT and business.
Negatives: No member of the core team has previous experience with cryptocurrency, blockchain or smart-contract projects, and only one advisor has previous blockchain experience.

Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Token Sale

Token price during Token Generation Even: 1 BRICK = 0.0005ETH
Issuing volume
– No Soft Cap
– During the Token Generation Event (ICO), no more than 154,523,442 BRICK will be issued in Total
– No more tokens will be issued after Token Generation Event (ICO)
Token distribution
– 70% of tokens will be distributed to the participants of Token Generation Event (ICO).
– 3% of tokens will be distributed in private pre-ICO
– 27% of tokens will be reserved for project team and partners.
– Tokens of founders are not transferable upon ICO completion: locked up for 6 months by a smart contract function.
Fund Allocation Structure
51% Development and support
20% Hosting
19% Management and administration
10% Marketing
Social Media Presence
Some presence mostly on bitcointalk and medium blog post. Light community engagment.

Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews