Fabric Token

The Fabric Token (FT) ecosystem aims to empower individuals and businesses with easy access to blockchain technology and smart contracts by providing a bundle of user-friendly software.

About Fabric Token

The Fabric Token ecosystem aims to allow users and businesses to adopt blockchain technology and smart contracts, and will consist of four main components:

  • The first component is the Fabric Token itself, which will be used as a functional utility to pay for products and services within the ecosystem.
  • The second is TokenGen, a platform used to generate smart contracts for the token economy.
  • The third is DApp Workbench – a solution for businesses looking to integrate blockchain technology and smart contracts into their business process management.
  • The last component is the Fabric Store, a decentralized marketplace for smart contract components, which aims to allow third-party developers to further expand the functionality scope of the Fabric Token ecosystem.
    Major Competition: NEO and NEM blockchain projects. Potential Advantages to Compeition: Little to none.
Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

The product is far from ready, there is very little action on the GitHub repo and the main focus of the team at the current status is to write a smart contract for an 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 that even those familar with programming must learn solidity from scratch to develop smart contracts on the Ethereum network, therefore being able to write programs without technical experience will help streamline smart contract adoption. However there is extremely stiff competition given this is the same end goal of the NEO and NEM projects which are very sucessful already.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.0
Use of Blockchain
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

The product does not have much to add to blockchain development, but it does simplify the process of building Ethereum smart contracts. There is some disruptive advantage as it would in theory expand the number of people capable of creating and deploying smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is built on top of Ethereum and creates a marketplace/economy within its own network which would require its own token, however it would be theoretically possible to peform this with only ETH. The system is mostly centralized but will create a decentralized marketplace where software developers may interact, create and sell smart contracts to each other. This is a contribution to the blockchain ecosystem but only in a small sense. They are not developing a new blockchain with new tech and different tech and a different governance model like for instance the NEO or NEM projects.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

Long but decent whitepaper that covers the bases however very boring to read, strong focus on the past developments of computer technology on a grand scale and presented in text-book format. Transparency of the project’s intentions are provided as well as the business plan and technology behind the plan. Transparency to the fact that the competitive landscape is filled with giants suchs as NEO and NEM is not provided in the paper and is obviously avoided.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

Dev. Roadmap is outlined on a month-to-month basis but is very vague overall with one-line goal statements on milestones. The overall vision is set and aims to create an additional layer on the Ethereum network, providing an easier way to build smart contracts for people without the necessary skills to do so via solidity. The platform is still under basic development and the project will not be fully developed until after the ICO. It will take about 4 months after the ICO until the beta platform may be released for public use. Very little action on github repo. Main focus is to develop a smart contract merely for an ICO, and no example UI has been created or displayed. A lot of work yet to be completed. 4 on dependencies since it will be heavily reliant on the Ethereum ecosystem.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.8
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Compliance

Explicit legal considerations in the legal agreement stating the intent of the token is for utility and not a security. However it is a tradeable finacial instrument which leaves plenty of room for interpretation as a potential security. The project is paying attention to current compliance issues and will not sell tokens to residents of USA, Singapore, PRC and a blanket statement of any other country that will require security licensing. There is a whitelisting process that is manually reviewed by the team however it appears all one must do is claim to not be a resident of a country that will require security licensing. The ability to weed-out potentially non-compliant participants in the ICO without more extensive “Know-your-customer” verification is highly questionable. High probability of being a security in countries requiring security registration and little attention to KYC laws. The smart contract infrastructure is to also to be developed after ICO which does not help in avoidance of being a security. Most likely fails Howey Test.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.0
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Company and Team

An established team with backgrounds in software development, software engineering, software security, business development, marketing, security asset compliance and NYSE trading, however no member of the team or advisory board has previous experience in blockchain development or other crypto-currency related projects. All members have verifiable LinkedIn profiles with credentials. Founded in September 2017. 3 Employees and 6 Advisors. All employees and advisors are committed to full-time positions outside the Fabric Token project. Big Negatives: The group on the whole is new to blockchain/crypto-currency and is currently only partly committed to the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.8
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

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?

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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

General Information

  • Maximum funds raised target: 8,526 ETH or approximately 9 million USD.
  • Token exchange rate: 1 ETH equals 9,000 Fabric Tokens or in other terms, 1 FT will be sold for exactly 0.1125 USD.
  • Fabric Token smart contract address: Will be known exactly 48 hours before fundraiser begins.
  • Launch date and time: February 15th, 2018 at 10:00:00 UTC.
  • Token launch completion: Either after 45 days from the beginning of the FT launch or until maximum funds raised target is reached.

Token Distribution

  • 71.25% will be available for sale to the general public.
  • 12% will go to the Fabric Token core team and will be released after 12 months.
  • 8.75% will go to the Fabric Token strategic advisors and will be locked until the end of the FT launch.
  • 7% will be allocated to advisors and released after 6 months.
  • 1% will be used for the bounty program.

Budget Allocation

  • Product Development: 55% of the budget – allocated to the core Fabric Token team. This financing will allow the development of the DApp Workbench product, including the necessary adjustments and improvements to the already existing TokenGen tool.
  • Marketing: 14% of the budget – allocated for expanding awareness and adoption of the Fabric Token ecosystem.
  • Contractors: 11% of the budget – allocated for third-party service providers offering engineering, marketing, growth-hacking, PR, partnerships, and other necessary services.
  • Legal: 9% of the budget – allocated for legal costs.
  • Contingency: 6% of the budget – allocated for unforeseen costs.
  • Administration: 5% of the budget – allocated for security, accounting and other associated administration costs. Very little media presence and community following.

Product

The product is far from ready, there is very little action on the GitHub repo and the main focus of the team at the current status is to write a smart contract for an 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 that even those familar with programming must learn solidity from scratch to develop smart contracts on the Ethereum network, therefore being able to write programs without technical experience will help streamline smart contract adoption. However there is extremely stiff competition given this is the same end goal of the NEO and NEM projects which are very sucessful already.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.0

Use of Blockchain

The product does not have much to add to blockchain development, but it does simplify the process of building Ethereum smart contracts. There is some disruptive advantage as it would in theory expand the number of people capable of creating and deploying smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is built on top of Ethereum and creates a marketplace/economy within its own network which would require its own token, however it would be theoretically possible to peform this with only ETH. The system is mostly centralized but will create a decentralized marketplace where software developers may interact, create and sell smart contracts to each other. This is a contribution to the blockchain ecosystem but only in a small sense. They are not developing a new blockchain with new tech and different tech and a different governance model like for instance the NEO or NEM projects.

Category Breakdown
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.0

Whitepaper

Long but decent whitepaper that covers the bases however very boring to read, strong focus on the past developments of computer technology on a grand scale and presented in text-book format. Transparency of the project’s intentions are provided as well as the business plan and technology behind the plan. Transparency to the fact that the competitive landscape is filled with giants suchs as NEO and NEM is not provided in the paper and is obviously avoided.

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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-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?

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

Roadmap

Dev. Roadmap is outlined on a month-to-month basis but is very vague overall with one-line goal statements on milestones. The overall vision is set and aims to create an additional layer on the Ethereum network, providing an easier way to build smart contracts for people without the necessary skills to do so via solidity. The platform is still under basic development and the project will not be fully developed until after the ICO. It will take about 4 months after the ICO until the beta platform may be released for public use. Very little action on github repo. Main focus is to develop a smart contract merely for an ICO, and no example UI has been created or displayed. A lot of work yet to be completed. 4 on dependencies since it will be heavily reliant on the Ethereum ecosystem.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
2.2

Compliance

Explicit legal considerations in the legal agreement stating the intent of the token is for utility and not a security. However it is a tradeable finacial instrument which leaves plenty of room for interpretation as a potential security. The project is paying attention to current compliance issues and will not sell tokens to residents of USA, Singapore, PRC and a blanket statement of any other country that will require security licensing. There is a whitelisting process that is manually reviewed by the team however it appears all one must do is claim to not be a resident of a country that will require security licensing. The ability to weed-out potentially non-compliant participants in the ICO without more extensive “Know-your-customer” verification is highly questionable. High probability of being a security in countries requiring security registration and little attention to KYC laws. The smart contract infrastructure is to also to be developed after ICO which does not help in avoidance of being a security. Most likely fails Howey Test.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
1.8

Company and Team

An established team with backgrounds in software development, software engineering, software security, business development, marketing, security asset compliance and NYSE trading, however no member of the team or advisory board has previous experience in blockchain development or other crypto-currency related projects. All members have verifiable LinkedIn profiles with credentials. Founded in September 2017. 3 Employees and 6 Advisors. All employees and advisors are committed to full-time positions outside the Fabric Token project. Big Negatives: The group on the whole is new to blockchain/crypto-currency and is currently only partly committed 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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Sale

General Information

  • Maximum funds raised target: 8,526 ETH or approximately 9 million USD.
  • Token exchange rate: 1 ETH equals 9,000 Fabric Tokens or in other terms, 1 FT will be sold for exactly 0.1125 USD.
  • Fabric Token smart contract address: Will be known exactly 48 hours before fundraiser begins.
  • Launch date and time: February 15th, 2018 at 10:00:00 UTC.
  • Token launch completion: Either after 45 days from the beginning of the FT launch or until maximum funds raised target is reached.

Token Distribution

  • 71.25% will be available for sale to the general public.
  • 12% will go to the Fabric Token core team and will be released after 12 months.
  • 8.75% will go to the Fabric Token strategic advisors and will be locked until the end of the FT launch.
  • 7% will be allocated to advisors and released after 6 months.
  • 1% will be used for the bounty program.

Budget Allocation

  • Product Development: 55% of the budget – allocated to the core Fabric Token team. This financing will allow the development of the DApp Workbench product, including the necessary adjustments and improvements to the already existing TokenGen tool.
  • Marketing: 14% of the budget – allocated for expanding awareness and adoption of the Fabric Token ecosystem.
  • Contractors: 11% of the budget – allocated for third-party service providers offering engineering, marketing, growth-hacking, PR, partnerships, and other necessary services.
  • Legal: 9% of the budget – allocated for legal costs.
  • Contingency: 6% of the budget – allocated for unforeseen costs.
  • Administration: 5% of the budget – allocated for security, accounting and other associated administration costs. Very little media presence and community following.

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?

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website