SingularityNET

SingularityNET lets anyone create, share, and monetize AI at scale. The world’s public AI network has arrived.

About SingularityNET

SingularityNET aims to create a open marketplace for AI services which will have the ability to cooperate together and collectively achieve higher levels of general artificial intelligence. AGI coins will be used to access AI services. The three main goals of SingularityNET are to become the hub of open AI technology, accelerate the development of open AI (leading to general AI development), and promote projects and technologies that are agreed to benefit society.

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?

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?

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?

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

SingularityNET aims to allow for different AI nodes to interact with each other and contribute to achieving higher levels of general AI. SingularityNET’s target user base are those that wish to use AI services (primarily enterprise clients). The level of competition that SingularityNET faces is moderate. There is a fair number of blockchain-related projects that aim to leverage blockchain technology in order to push AI development. The GitHub page is provided and shows very high levels of activity and content. There is an alpha release of the product using the Kovan Test Network.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

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

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

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?

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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

AGI is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as the internal currency for services provided using the SingularityNET platform. It is stated that SingularityNET should be thought of more as a protocol and a structure, which makes the service blockchain agnostic and “requires no special innovations in cryptocurrency or blockchain technology”. It is stated that communication (and microtransactions) between AI agents will take place off-chain. The SingularityNET platform provides an API for exchanging information between AI agents and a mechanism for exchanging services for AGI tokens, as well as a method for democratic governance on specific issues. It is stated that SingularityNET will have its own blockchain solution and the governance structure will follow a proof-of-reputation consensus protocol, “which combines several factors that are: stake, overall activity in the network, specific rating aspects (particularly benefit rating), length of time with activity and rating levels above specific thresholds, etc.”. There is a section of the document that specifically discusses the need for creating a custom token. However the justification for creating a custom token is fairly weak. The reasons for creating a custom token only make sense if a custom blockchain solution is also used (or in terms of the generic benefits of using cryptocurrency). Since the custom blockchain solution has yet to be developed, the primary reason for creating a custom token is to generate funds.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.8
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?

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 53 pages in length. The technology plan is presented with high levels of detail. There is a good balance between providing sufficient detail of how the platform will operate and maintaining readability of the document. The business plan is presented with fairly high levels of detail. There is considerable discussion regarding market needs and market assessment, and the overall economic strategy of the platform. Overall, the document is fairly comprehensive but lacks some details regarding the token sale and compliance/regulatory considerations.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.6
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
Feasibility

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
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

There are two development roadmaps presented, one which focuses on business development, and the other on technological development. The technical roadmap is considerably detailed, and each milestone is accompanied by a very thorough discussion. The roadmap spans from December 2017 to 2020. Milestones reached thus far include the development of the alpha version of the SingularityNET Agent framework which is available on the website. By the end of 2018, a completely functional version of the SingularityNET infrastructure is planned to be released.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.6
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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 does not contain a specific section that discusses compliance or regulatory considerations, but it is clearly stated that the AGI token should be considered a utility token. It is stated that “AGI tokens are highly unlikely to satisfy the “expectation of profits primarily from the efforts of others” element of the Howey Test”. The majority of the discussion regarding compliance lies within a footnote of the document. The language lacks professionalism. KYC was used for the token sale.

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?

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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The core team of 4 individuals is listed on the SingularityNET website, along with the members’ profile pictures and links to LinkedIn profiles. The skill set of the core team is mainly technical, based on to the team members’ backgrounds, and there is also an individual with a background in business development. The CEO is involved in a number of enterprises, including the OpenCog Foundation, the Artificial General Intelligence Society, Mozi Health, and Hanson Robotics. Other key team members are also concurrently involved with other projects and one individual does not list SingularityNET on their LinkedIn profile. Team commitment is questionable.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Token Sale

The total number of AGI tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 20% is reserved for the reward pool, 18% is for the founders, 8% is for the SingularityNET Foundation, and 4% is for the bounty program). The reward pool is further segregated into the development reserve (40%), the beneficial reserve (40%), and the curation reserve (20%). Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is presented with fairly high levels of detail and can be found on SingularityNet’s blog [https://blog.singularitynet.io/announcing-the-singularitynet-token-sale-5ae1b5540bd2]. The hard cap is $36MM USD (achieved during the ICO).

Product

SingularityNET aims to allow for different AI nodes to interact with each other and contribute to achieving higher levels of general AI. SingularityNET’s target user base are those that wish to use AI services (primarily enterprise clients). The level of competition that SingularityNET faces is moderate. There is a fair number of blockchain-related projects that aim to leverage blockchain technology in order to push AI development. The GitHub page is provided and shows very high levels of activity and content. There is an alpha release of the product using the Kovan Test Network.

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?

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?

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:
2.8

Use of Blockchain

AGI is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as the internal currency for services provided using the SingularityNET platform. It is stated that SingularityNET should be thought of more as a protocol and a structure, which makes the service blockchain agnostic and “requires no special innovations in cryptocurrency or blockchain technology”. It is stated that communication (and microtransactions) between AI agents will take place off-chain. The SingularityNET platform provides an API for exchanging information between AI agents and a mechanism for exchanging services for AGI tokens, as well as a method for democratic governance on specific issues. It is stated that SingularityNET will have its own blockchain solution and the governance structure will follow a proof-of-reputation consensus protocol, “which combines several factors that are: stake, overall activity in the network, specific rating aspects (particularly benefit rating), length of time with activity and rating levels above specific thresholds, etc.”. There is a section of the document that specifically discusses the need for creating a custom token. However the justification for creating a custom token is fairly weak. The reasons for creating a custom token only make sense if a custom blockchain solution is also used (or in terms of the generic benefits of using cryptocurrency). Since the custom blockchain solution has yet to be developed, the primary reason for creating a custom token is to generate funds.

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?

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?

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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 53 pages in length. The technology plan is presented with high levels of detail. There is a good balance between providing sufficient detail of how the platform will operate and maintaining readability of the document. The business plan is presented with fairly high levels of detail. There is considerable discussion regarding market needs and market assessment, and the overall economic strategy of the platform. Overall, the document is fairly comprehensive but lacks some details regarding the token sale and compliance/regulatory considerations.

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?

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

There are two development roadmaps presented, one which focuses on business development, and the other on technological development. The technical roadmap is considerably detailed, and each milestone is accompanied by a very thorough discussion. The roadmap spans from December 2017 to 2020. Milestones reached thus far include the development of the alpha version of the SingularityNET Agent framework which is available on the website. By the end of 2018, a completely functional version of the SingularityNET infrastructure is planned to be released.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
Feasibility

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
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:
3.6

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain a specific section that discusses compliance or regulatory considerations, but it is clearly stated that the AGI token should be considered a utility token. It is stated that “AGI tokens are highly unlikely to satisfy the “expectation of profits primarily from the efforts of others” element of the Howey Test”. The majority of the discussion regarding compliance lies within a footnote of the document. The language lacks professionalism. KYC was 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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:
2.6

Company and Team

The core team of 4 individuals is listed on the SingularityNET website, along with the members’ profile pictures and links to LinkedIn profiles. The skill set of the core team is mainly technical, based on to the team members’ backgrounds, and there is also an individual with a background in business development. The CEO is involved in a number of enterprises, including the OpenCog Foundation, the Artificial General Intelligence Society, Mozi Health, and Hanson Robotics. Other key team members are also concurrently involved with other projects and one individual does not list SingularityNET on their LinkedIn profile. Team commitment is questionable.

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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Sale

The total number of AGI tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 20% is reserved for the reward pool, 18% is for the founders, 8% is for the SingularityNET Foundation, and 4% is for the bounty program). The reward pool is further segregated into the development reserve (40%), the beneficial reserve (40%), and the curation reserve (20%). Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is presented with fairly high levels of detail and can be found on SingularityNet’s blog [https://blog.singularitynet.io/announcing-the-singularitynet-token-sale-5ae1b5540bd2]. The hard cap is $36MM USD (achieved during the ICO).

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website