Cibus

CIBUS is bringing Trust back into Food and Dietary Supplements segments with a new decentralized, blockchain based platform. CIBUS will help its users to track and transact food and dietary supplement

About Cibus

CIBUS is a multi-functional platform powered by CIBUS Tokens that aims to promote food-related safety and transparency by using blockchain technology to ensure product authentication and life cycle visibility, as well as inventory management and product recall efficiency. CIBUS aims to allow for the authentication of products freshness (in case of perishables) and chain of custody with accountability, to provide supply chain mapping and optimization, and facilitate B2C and B2B food trading. CIBUS aims to create a holistic, global, food-based social network, with robotic assurance for supply-chain management, allowing for customs, auditing, and regulation process optimization. The CIBUS platform will utilize a PULL chain algorithm in order to enable users to ‘pull’ product information and incentivize food producers/sellers (with tokens) to make the relevant information available on blockchain.
Competitors: FoodBlockchain.XYZ, Ripe.io, Provenance.org, Walmart, IBM
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Geared towards not only tracking food, but ultimately aims to create a food economy.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.8
Product
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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 is currently a publicly accessible active github repo, showing work for the ICO and the token smart contract. Complete beta/final blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, and the public release is planned to occur in 2020 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Cibus product in terms of providing a decentralized food quality control mechanism. The potential / target user-base will grow with natural population development (given the increasing need for food based services) and cryptocurrency adoption in the general population. There is currently some normal competition in the sector, and blockchain competition will stiffen over time as cryptocurrency adoption continues.
Competitors: FoodBlockchain.XYZ, Ripe.io, Provenance.org, Walmart, IBM

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.2
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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating a decentralized food economy. There is a disruptive advantage as the platform is aimed at enabling the decentralization to provide unprecedented transparency in the food market.
There is need for a custom token, which allows for pricing and settlements as well as interaction on the platform such to acess records and display advertisments.
The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in developing a new decentralized platform for the food economy tracked with a cryptocurrency.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.8
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

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

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is well put together, professional and aesthetic, and contains a mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is 41 pages in length, and can be easily read and understood due to the amount media presented and efficient organization of the text. The whitepaper provides high level information and includes main sections which are each described in detail: Introduction, Why Blockchain, Introducing Cibus Ecosystem – Mission and Vision, why Cibus, Phase 1, Phase 2, Competitive Analysis, Timeline, Cibus Token Economy, Bounty Program, Cibus Blockchain Process, and Team. The business and technology plans behind Cibus are detailed and concisely explained including textual and graphical explanations.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.0
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.
Feasiblity

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

A milestone roadmap is given on a quarterly basis. Obstacles lie ahead as alpha, beta, and final platform/blockchain development and public platform launch will occur after the ICO. The roadmap is vague and provides no descriptions of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
Q4 of 2017 – Publication of White Paper, Website and promotion
Q1 of 2018 – Token Generation Event, Listing CIBUS Token in cryptocurrency exchanges
Q2 of 2018 – Alpha Release of CIBUS Trace
Q3 of 2018 – Alpha Release of CIBUS Trade, CIBUS Retail and CIBUS Social
Q4 of 2018 – Beta Version of CIBUS Trace
Q1 of 2019 – Beta Version of CIBUS Trade, CIBUS Retail and CIBUS Social
Q2 of 2019 – Alpha Version of CIBUS AD, CIBUS Escrow, CIBUS Logistics & CIBUS Affiliate
Q3 of 2019 – Full Release of CIBUS Trace, CIBUS Trade, CIBUS Retail and CIBUS Social
Q4 of 2019 – Beta Version of CIBUS AD, CIBUS Escrow, CIBUS Logistics & CIBUS Affiliate
Q1 of 2020 – Full release of Integrated CIBUS Ecosystem Platform

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.4
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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?

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.

Compliance

The CIBUS-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the CIBUS platform by allowing for interaction, payments, and advertisments. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means of payment however, the token also functions as a means for access to the network and ecosystem as a whole.
The token smart-contract is complete and audited, and there is a github repo available for public review, however it is not very active. Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence, and this is enforced with a manual screening process via whitelisting – it is expressly stated that listed “restricted person” will not be allowed to participate in the ICO. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and and come with no warranties. The terms and conditions of the sale aim to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and provide a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.4
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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.

Company and Team

CIBUS has an established team with 14 employees and 7 advisors.
The core team has experience in food safety, healtcare, supply chain and business operations, cloud software technologies, web development, mobile apps, and programming.
The advisors to the project have experience primarily in ICO consultancy/advisement, blockchain development, and business development.
Most team members have some verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however the CEO’s profile could not be found, and many profiles provide little information. Most members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of Cibus and few members display working for Cibus on their LinkedIn profile. (The project’s community manager lists himself as Bounty Manager at Bitcointalk.org.)
Positives: The core team has related experience and advisors have previous experience in the field of blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contracts.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project and there are no blockchain developers on the team.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

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

Token Sale

CIBUS Token (CBT)
Total Supply: 100 million CBT
Hard Cap: 40 million CBT
Soft Cap: 5 million CBT
Purchase: 1 ETH = 1000 CBT (+bonuses)

TOKEN DISTRIBUTION
Pre-Sale 10%
TGE (ICO) 30%
Marketing 20%
Social Reward 15%
Team 10%
Advisers 5%
Bounty Campaign 10%

ICO Funds Allocation
Development 50%
Marketing 30%
Legal 5%
Operations 10%
Contingency 5%

Social Media Presence & Following
There is some community engagment and reception but it does not appear to be organic.

Product

There is currently a publicly accessible active github repo, showing work for the ICO and the token smart contract. Complete beta/final blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, and the public release is planned to occur in 2020 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Cibus product in terms of providing a decentralized food quality control mechanism. The potential / target user-base will grow with natural population development (given the increasing need for food based services) and cryptocurrency adoption in the general population. There is currently some normal competition in the sector, and blockchain competition will stiffen over time as cryptocurrency adoption continues.
Competitors: FoodBlockchain.XYZ, Ripe.io, Provenance.org, Walmart, IBM

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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:
2.8

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating a decentralized food economy. There is a disruptive advantage as the platform is aimed at enabling the decentralization to provide unprecedented transparency in the food market.
There is need for a custom token, which allows for pricing and settlements as well as interaction on the platform such to acess records and display advertisments.
The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in developing a new decentralized platform for the food economy tracked with a cryptocurrency.

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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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:
3.2

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is well put together, professional and aesthetic, and contains a mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is 41 pages in length, and can be easily read and understood due to the amount media presented and efficient organization of the text. The whitepaper provides high level information and includes main sections which are each described in detail: Introduction, Why Blockchain, Introducing Cibus Ecosystem – Mission and Vision, why Cibus, Phase 1, Phase 2, Competitive Analysis, Timeline, Cibus Token Economy, Bounty Program, Cibus Blockchain Process, and Team. The business and technology plans behind Cibus are detailed and concisely explained including textual and graphical explanations.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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.
Whitepaper Score:
3.8

Roadmap

A milestone roadmap is given on a quarterly basis. Obstacles lie ahead as alpha, beta, and final platform/blockchain development and public platform launch will occur after the ICO. The roadmap is vague and provides no descriptions of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
Q4 of 2017 – Publication of White Paper, Website and promotion
Q1 of 2018 – Token Generation Event, Listing CIBUS Token in cryptocurrency exchanges
Q2 of 2018 – Alpha Release of CIBUS Trace
Q3 of 2018 – Alpha Release of CIBUS Trade, CIBUS Retail and CIBUS Social
Q4 of 2018 – Beta Version of CIBUS Trace
Q1 of 2019 – Beta Version of CIBUS Trade, CIBUS Retail and CIBUS Social
Q2 of 2019 – Alpha Version of CIBUS AD, CIBUS Escrow, CIBUS Logistics & CIBUS Affiliate
Q3 of 2019 – Full Release of CIBUS Trace, CIBUS Trade, CIBUS Retail and CIBUS Social
Q4 of 2019 – Beta Version of CIBUS AD, CIBUS Escrow, CIBUS Logistics & CIBUS Affiliate
Q1 of 2020 – Full release of Integrated CIBUS Ecosystem Platform

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.
Feasiblity

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
3.0

Compliance

The CIBUS-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the CIBUS platform by allowing for interaction, payments, and advertisments. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means of payment however, the token also functions as a means for access to the network and ecosystem as a whole.
The token smart-contract is complete and audited, and there is a github repo available for public review, however it is not very active. Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence, and this is enforced with a manual screening process via whitelisting – it is expressly stated that listed “restricted person” will not be allowed to participate in the ICO. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and and come with no warranties. The terms and conditions of the sale aim to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and provide a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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?

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.
Compliance Score:
3.4

Company and Team

CIBUS has an established team with 14 employees and 7 advisors.
The core team has experience in food safety, healtcare, supply chain and business operations, cloud software technologies, web development, mobile apps, and programming.
The advisors to the project have experience primarily in ICO consultancy/advisement, blockchain development, and business development.
Most team members have some verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however the CEO’s profile could not be found, and many profiles provide little information. Most members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of Cibus and few members display working for Cibus on their LinkedIn profile. (The project’s community manager lists himself as Bounty Manager at Bitcointalk.org.)
Positives: The core team has related experience and advisors have previous experience in the field of blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contracts.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project and there are no blockchain developers on the team.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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.
Company and Team Score:
2.4

Token Sale

CIBUS Token (CBT)
Total Supply: 100 million CBT
Hard Cap: 40 million CBT
Soft Cap: 5 million CBT
Purchase: 1 ETH = 1000 CBT (+bonuses)

TOKEN DISTRIBUTION
Pre-Sale 10%
TGE (ICO) 30%
Marketing 20%
Social Reward 15%
Team 10%
Advisers 5%
Bounty Campaign 10%

ICO Funds Allocation
Development 50%
Marketing 30%
Legal 5%
Operations 10%
Contingency 5%

Social Media Presence & Following
There is some community engagment and reception but it does not appear to be organic.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
3.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website