Obizcoin

Smart Process Automation BOT - Based on Artificial Intelligence & Blockchain Technology

About Obizcoin

Obizcoin aims to develop a “virtual CEO”, where artificial intelligence is used to automatically generate business processes. Token holders will have access to services such as operation risk score analysis and an associate program of process consultants. It is stated that individuals participating in the ICO will receive a guaranteed minimum of 1% return each month until the BOT is developed.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

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

Product

Obizcoin aims to provide an enterprise solution (targeting startups and small/medium sized enterprises) that will allow for business processes to be developed/optimized automatically. The level of competition for enterprise solutions that optimize business processes is quite high. However, there has yet to be a successful general AI service that is capable of generating processes tailored to businesses spanning multiple industries. The BOT is not ready and the current stage of development is not clear due to the lack of a detailed roadmap or a publicly viewable GitHub page. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the project is primarily at the conceptualization stage.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.0
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.

Use of Blockchain

OBZ is an ERC20 compliant token. OBZ tokens give access to services such as “operational risk score analysis, Associate program of Process Consultants and such other services available on BOT”. Token holders will also receive a minimum 1% return per month (until BOT development is complete or 1 year). Overall, the use of blockchain technology is not innovative and is primarily a means to generate funding for the platform. Discussion of blockchain technology and smart contracts is limited to general descriptions of the nature of the technology, as opposed to how it will be utilized by the platform. It is not effectively communicated how the service will benefit from blockchain technology.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
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

The whitepaper is 31 pages long and a separate document outlining the technical aspects of the platform is also provided. The technology plan is presented in low levels of detail. Content regarding blockchain and smart contracts is merely a generic description of the technology, without a discussion of how it will be integrated with the final product. Specific technical information regarding the AI solution is absent from the discussion which focuses on the features that are intended to be developed. The business plan is presented in moderate detail. Specific details are provided regarding the expected returns for token holders. However, further discussion regarding market research should be included.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

1.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper is provided with significantly low levels of detail. Development is divided into three stages, each with a list of intended milestones. However, neither dates nor estimated time frames are provided. Thus, the roadmap is noncommittal and the milestones presented are quite vague, with milestones that include “business intelligence”, “setting database”, and “coding logic of BOT”.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.0
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?

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

The whitepaper contains a disclaimer section towards the end, approximately one page long. It is explicitly stated that OBZ tokens are utility tokens, although it is clearly indicated that investors will receive a return on their investment as the platform develops. It is not clear whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether particular jurisdictions/demographics are restricted.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.2
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Company and Team

The project’s parent company, Your Retail Coach, provides business management solutions and was founded in Pune, India in 2012. Although the organization has experience developing business solutions, it is not apparent that the organization possesses extensive experience with utilizing artificial intelligence for their operation. The team is not included in the whitepaper but the team members are listed on the Obizcoin website, along with their profile pictures, job titles, and links to LinkedIn profiles. Considering that short descriptions are not provided on the website, it would be expected that LinkedIn profiles would have sufficient information to assure competence. However, investigation of the founders’ profiles yields little information regarding their professional history. The founders do not have a technical background. The skill set of the team is also heavily skewed towards business development. There is a single individual on the team with experience with blockchain/smart contracts, however primarily from an economic perspective. Overall, there is a significant lack of developer support on the team, especially considering the nature of the project.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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 OBZ tokens is 300 million, where 90% will be distributed to investors, 7% is for the founders and advisors, 2% is for bounties, and 1% is for the staff. Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is described in moderately low detail: 60% is for application development and operations, 30% is for marketing, and 10% is for the reserve fund. The soft cap is $1.5MM USD and the hard cap is $15MM USD, where 1 ETH = 10,000 OBZ. The token sale takes place on March 14th, 2018.

Product

Obizcoin aims to provide an enterprise solution (targeting startups and small/medium sized enterprises) that will allow for business processes to be developed/optimized automatically. The level of competition for enterprise solutions that optimize business processes is quite high. However, there has yet to be a successful general AI service that is capable of generating processes tailored to businesses spanning multiple industries. The BOT is not ready and the current stage of development is not clear due to the lack of a detailed roadmap or a publicly viewable GitHub page. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the project is primarily at the conceptualization stage.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.2

Use of Blockchain

OBZ is an ERC20 compliant token. OBZ tokens give access to services such as “operational risk score analysis, Associate program of Process Consultants and such other services available on BOT”. Token holders will also receive a minimum 1% return per month (until BOT development is complete or 1 year). Overall, the use of blockchain technology is not innovative and is primarily a means to generate funding for the platform. Discussion of blockchain technology and smart contracts is limited to general descriptions of the nature of the technology, as opposed to how it will be utilized by the platform. It is not effectively communicated how the service will benefit from blockchain technology.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 31 pages long and a separate document outlining the technical aspects of the platform is also provided. The technology plan is presented in low levels of detail. Content regarding blockchain and smart contracts is merely a generic description of the technology, without a discussion of how it will be integrated with the final product. Specific technical information regarding the AI solution is absent from the discussion which focuses on the features that are intended to be developed. The business plan is presented in moderate detail. Specific details are provided regarding the expected returns for token holders. However, further discussion regarding market research should be included.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
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

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper is provided with significantly low levels of detail. Development is divided into three stages, each with a list of intended milestones. However, neither dates nor estimated time frames are provided. Thus, the roadmap is noncommittal and the milestones presented are quite vague, with milestones that include “business intelligence”, “setting database”, and “coding logic of BOT”.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

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

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a disclaimer section towards the end, approximately one page long. It is explicitly stated that OBZ tokens are utility tokens, although it is clearly indicated that investors will receive a return on their investment as the platform develops. It is not clear whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether particular jurisdictions/demographics are restricted.

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?

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:
2.0

Company and Team

The project’s parent company, Your Retail Coach, provides business management solutions and was founded in Pune, India in 2012. Although the organization has experience developing business solutions, it is not apparent that the organization possesses extensive experience with utilizing artificial intelligence for their operation. The team is not included in the whitepaper but the team members are listed on the Obizcoin website, along with their profile pictures, job titles, and links to LinkedIn profiles. Considering that short descriptions are not provided on the website, it would be expected that LinkedIn profiles would have sufficient information to assure competence. However, investigation of the founders’ profiles yields little information regarding their professional history. The founders do not have a technical background. The skill set of the team is also heavily skewed towards business development. There is a single individual on the team with experience with blockchain/smart contracts, however primarily from an economic perspective. Overall, there is a significant lack of developer support on the team, especially considering the nature of the project.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.2

Token Sale

The total number of OBZ tokens is 300 million, where 90% will be distributed to investors, 7% is for the founders and advisors, 2% is for bounties, and 1% is for the staff. Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is described in moderately low detail: 60% is for application development and operations, 30% is for marketing, and 10% is for the reserve fund. The soft cap is $1.5MM USD and the hard cap is $15MM USD, where 1 ETH = 10,000 OBZ. The token sale takes place on March 14th, 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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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