Bubbletone

About Bubbletone

Bubbletone is a platform that facilitates decentralized telecommunication services, connecting mobile network operators and end users globally on a blockchain-based marketplace. Users will be able to travel and use the network without roaming concerns, as customers of local operators, which in turn obtain access to a larger, international market. It is stated that users will be able to retain their phone number while using the Bubbletone blockchain network. The mobile application is currently available for download.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.2
Product
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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.

Product

There are a few blockchain telecommunication platforms that compete with Bubbletone. There is a specific section in the document that discusses competitors, notably roaming hubs and Project Fi by Google. It is stated that roaming hubs are complex and expensive in comparison to Bubbletone’s approach, whereas with respect to Project Fi, Bubbletone points out that the level of centralization of Google’s solution is not desirable. There is a working mobile application that is available for download. The GitHub page is provided and shows low levels of activity.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally disruptive.
Need for a 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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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.

Use of Blockchain

UMT is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to pay for telecommunication services. The platform uses a proof-of-importance consensus protocol (which is a modified version of the proof-of-stake protocol) based on net transfers in the past 30 days. Since network operators are compensated with UMT tokens, creating a custom token is justifiable.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 33 pages long and is accompanied by a 12-page document outlining the platform’s technical specifications. The technology plan is presented with fairly high levels of detail. Technical specifics are presented primarily using figures from the yellowpaper, but there is also a high-level discussion of how the blockchain telecom system will operate and a discussion regarding performance/stability. The business plan is also presented in moderately high detail. There is thorough market research as well as discussions regarding problems with existing solutions and how Bubbletone will be able to address these issues. However, there could be more discussion regarding competitors that are utilizing blockchain technology. Overall, the whitepaper is fairly comprehensive.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q1 2018 to Q4 2019 and contains moderatly high levels of detail. Milestones reached thus far include the test platform for the smart contracts (“offer” and “request” functionality enabled), and integration with eSIM platforms. The web API is planned to launch in Q2 2018, followed by new features on the Bubbletone app including 4K video conferences (the feasibility of this feature is in question, considering the amount of data that will be need to be transmitted).

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
Compliance
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contains a disclaimer section and contains low levels of discussion regarding compliance and legal considerations.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.4
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

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

Company and Team

The 24 team members are listed on the website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. The development team is fairly large (15 team members), with some individuals having experience working on other blockchain-related projects. The lead team members have experience that is relevant to the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.8
Token Sale
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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

The total number of UMT tokens is 1 billion (50% is for the crowdsale, 20% is for the founders, 22% is for the development fund, 7.8% is for the team and community development fund, and 0.2% is for the bounty fund). Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is not clearly indicated. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 35,000 ETH, where 1 ETH = 4000 UMT. It is stated that the organization reserves the right the increase the hard cap if the price of ETH falls more than 20% of the current rate (not specified). The token sale takes place on March 20, 2018 to May 20, 2018.

Product

There are a few blockchain telecommunication platforms that compete with Bubbletone. There is a specific section in the document that discusses competitors, notably roaming hubs and Project Fi by Google. It is stated that roaming hubs are complex and expensive in comparison to Bubbletone’s approach, whereas with respect to Project Fi, Bubbletone points out that the level of centralization of Google’s solution is not desirable. There is a working mobile application that is available for download. The GitHub page is provided and shows low levels of activity.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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.
Product Score:
3.2

Use of Blockchain

UMT is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to pay for telecommunication services. The platform uses a proof-of-importance consensus protocol (which is a modified version of the proof-of-stake protocol) based on net transfers in the past 30 days. Since network operators are compensated with UMT tokens, creating a custom token is justifiable.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally disruptive.
Need for a 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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 33 pages long and is accompanied by a 12-page document outlining the platform’s technical specifications. The technology plan is presented with fairly high levels of detail. Technical specifics are presented primarily using figures from the yellowpaper, but there is also a high-level discussion of how the blockchain telecom system will operate and a discussion regarding performance/stability. The business plan is also presented in moderately high detail. There is thorough market research as well as discussions regarding problems with existing solutions and how Bubbletone will be able to address these issues. However, there could be more discussion regarding competitors that are utilizing blockchain technology. Overall, the whitepaper is fairly comprehensive.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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.
Whitepaper Score:
3.6

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q1 2018 to Q4 2019 and contains moderatly high levels of detail. Milestones reached thus far include the test platform for the smart contracts (“offer” and “request” functionality enabled), and integration with eSIM platforms. The web API is planned to launch in Q2 2018, followed by new features on the Bubbletone app including 4K video conferences (the feasibility of this feature is in question, considering the amount of data that will be need to be transmitted).

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
2.4

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contains a disclaimer section and contains low levels of discussion regarding compliance and legal considerations.

Category Breakdown
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

The 24 team members are listed on the website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. The development team is fairly large (15 team members), with some individuals having experience working on other blockchain-related projects. The lead team members have experience that is relevant to the project.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
3.4

Token Sale

The total number of UMT tokens is 1 billion (50% is for the crowdsale, 20% is for the founders, 22% is for the development fund, 7.8% is for the team and community development fund, and 0.2% is for the bounty fund). Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is not clearly indicated. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 35,000 ETH, where 1 ETH = 4000 UMT. It is stated that the organization reserves the right the increase the hard cap if the price of ETH falls more than 20% of the current rate (not specified). The token sale takes place on March 20, 2018 to May 20, 2018.

Category Breakdown
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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
1.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website