RepuX

RepuX is a blockchain-backed protocol and platform for SMEs to earn rewards for sharing data on a secure, decentralized network.

About RepuX

RepuX aims to provide a platform and protocol allowing SMBs to easily share their data and receive compensation for it, and developers to gain access to datasets in order to to train machine learning algorithms and build applications, which can then be sold back to the enterprises for better business decision making. RPX tokens are the medium of exchange and transaction on the platform, used to access data and services.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
Product
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

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

Product

RepuX aims incentivize users to share data and create an easy way for developers to access this data. The concept of creating tokenized incentives for sharing data is not particularly innovative, and RepuX faces many competitors in the realm of blockchain-related projects with similar aims. The GitHub page is provided and shows very low levels of activity and the only repository available for public viewing is for the token sale. However, in the development roadmap, it is stated that the RepuX protocol went live as of December 2017.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.6
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

RPX is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as a means of exchange on the RepuX platform, as well as a method of incentivizing users to share data. RepuX’s documentation includes a section that discusses the specific uses of tokens on the platform, including data sales/purchases, operation of the oracle network, and enabling the development of third party application on top of the RepuX protocol. RepuX “considered many different solutions” with regard to alternative blockchains, and believes that “a Proof of Authority (or POA) custom blockchain will most likely be the fastest, most secure method of blockchain in the longer term”. However, whether this is a serious consideration for the organization is unknown and the length of time required to implement a new blockchain solution is not clear.

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 50 pages long and contains a considerable amount of legal documentation as well as embedded code. The technology plan is presented in fairly high levels of detail and the protocol discusses all the operational layers of the service, including application, data, logic, and value layers. The business plan is presented in moderate detail and discusses the advertising (freemium) model, and provides thorough market research, which is presented in a section that outlines that potential opportunities for the RepuX protocol.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from July 2017 to June 2018 and contains low levels of detail. There are 9 milestones, 5 of which have already been reached including funding, establishment of the organization, and the launch of the RepuX protocol. The token sale audit is planned for April 2018 (although an audit can already be found on the GitHub page) and the protocol will be open for developers in May 2018. Decentralized applications using the RepuX protocol are planned to be available by June 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.2
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?

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

The whitepaper contains discussions regarding legal considerations both at the beginning and towards the end of the document, with a combined length of approximately 15 pages. It is explicitly stated that RPX tokens are utility tokens are that the organization does not believe they should be considered securities. KYC will be used for the token sale.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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 team of 12 individuals is listed on the RepuX website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. It is interesting to note that RepuX chose to present the team and “who is behind RepuX” by placing their advisors on the main page of their website. The team’s skill set is geared towards technology as opposed to business development. There are multiple team members with experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.4
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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 RPX tokens is 500 million (30% is for the public token sale, 20% is for the presale, 10% is for the rewards pool, 23% will be sold on the platform, 12% is for the founding team 3% is for ambassadors, and 2% is for token sale bounties). The vesting period for the founding team is 3 years. The allocation of funds is described in vague detail as it is stated that “RepuX expects that a substantial amount of the proceeds of the Pre-Sale will be used to progress the development of the RepuX Protocol and the RepuX Token ecosystem”. The soft cap is $1MM USD and the hard cap is $33.1 MM USD, where 1 RPX = $0.20 USD. The token sale takes place From March 6, 2018 to April 5th 2018.

Product

RepuX aims incentivize users to share data and create an easy way for developers to access this data. The concept of creating tokenized incentives for sharing data is not particularly innovative, and RepuX faces many competitors in the realm of blockchain-related projects with similar aims. The GitHub page is provided and shows very low levels of activity and the only repository available for public viewing is for the token sale. However, in the development roadmap, it is stated that the RepuX protocol went live as of December 2017.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat 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:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

RPX is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as a means of exchange on the RepuX platform, as well as a method of incentivizing users to share data. RepuX’s documentation includes a section that discusses the specific uses of tokens on the platform, including data sales/purchases, operation of the oracle network, and enabling the development of third party application on top of the RepuX protocol. RepuX “considered many different solutions” with regard to alternative blockchains, and believes that “a Proof of Authority (or POA) custom blockchain will most likely be the fastest, most secure method of blockchain in the longer term”. However, whether this is a serious consideration for the organization is unknown and the length of time required to implement a new blockchain solution is not clear.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 50 pages long and contains a considerable amount of legal documentation as well as embedded code. The technology plan is presented in fairly high levels of detail and the protocol discusses all the operational layers of the service, including application, data, logic, and value layers. The business plan is presented in moderate detail and discusses the advertising (freemium) model, and provides thorough market research, which is presented in a section that outlines that potential opportunities for the RepuX protocol.

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 July 2017 to June 2018 and contains low levels of detail. There are 9 milestones, 5 of which have already been reached including funding, establishment of the organization, and the launch of the RepuX protocol. The token sale audit is planned for April 2018 (although an audit can already be found on the GitHub page) and the protocol will be open for developers in May 2018. Decentralized applications using the RepuX protocol are planned to be available by June 2018.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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:
2.8

Compliance

The whitepaper contains discussions regarding legal considerations both at the beginning and towards the end of the document, with a combined length of approximately 15 pages. It is explicitly stated that RPX tokens are utility tokens are that the organization does not believe they should be considered securities. KYC will be used for the token sale.

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?

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
3.2

Company and Team

The team of 12 individuals is listed on the RepuX website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. It is interesting to note that RepuX chose to present the team and “who is behind RepuX” by placing their advisors on the main page of their website. The team’s skill set is geared towards technology as opposed to business development. There are multiple team members with experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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:
3.0

Token Sale

The total number of RPX tokens is 500 million (30% is for the public token sale, 20% is for the presale, 10% is for the rewards pool, 23% will be sold on the platform, 12% is for the founding team 3% is for ambassadors, and 2% is for token sale bounties). The vesting period for the founding team is 3 years. The allocation of funds is described in vague detail as it is stated that “RepuX expects that a substantial amount of the proceeds of the Pre-Sale will be used to progress the development of the RepuX Protocol and the RepuX Token ecosystem”. The soft cap is $1MM USD and the hard cap is $33.1 MM USD, where 1 RPX = $0.20 USD. The token sale takes place From March 6, 2018 to April 5th 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website