Basic Rating

  • Sphere Social

  • Sphere Network is a next-generation decentralized Social Media network. We introduce the Social Activity Token, a new form of digital currency designed to be used within Sphere.
  • 2.2

Rating Insights

Sphere Social aims to be a decentralized social media network that offers users privacy and the ability to control and tokenize their social media data for protection and resale. The Sphere “solution” to the social media problem is to ensure privacy, company transparency, and data security, while also ensuring that the millions that corporations make off of user data doesn’t belong to them, but to the users.Competitors: Steemit, Nexus, Social X
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: little to none

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
2.6
Product

Product

The product has a public beta released on the android/IOS app store and is easy to sign up for. There is a claim for a GitHub repo for the ICO smart contract, however no links are provided and no repo can be found when github is searched. The main focus of the team is to complete the ICO and to create an advertising platform and marketplace after the ICO. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and the decentralized mainnet will not be released for several months or maybe not until next year.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the social media industry involves anywhere from 2 to 3 billion people.
Competitors: Steemit, Nexus, Social X

Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
2.2
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own dapp for social media, aiming to decentralize such centralized application as Facebook. There is a disruptive advantage as, in theory, it would enable further decentralization of centralized applications such as FB, and would allow for social media privacy and control over social media data created on the dapp. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent dapp, however in theory ETH alone could accomplish this as well. The system aims to be fully decentralized in the future, however it is not clear how it intends to accomplish full decentralization as in its current form it is completely centralized. Pontentially disruptive since FB is completely centralized.

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.)?

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.
2.4
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The whitepaper looks more like a large pitch-deck than a whitepaper. It is very simple and provides a low level analysis of the problems of social media of today, how blockchain can solve these problems, and how Sphere intends on providing a specific and robust blockchain solution. The whitepaper provides a basic business plan and how the potential technology can make a change. Provides no reveiw of current competition and provides no legal review or agreements of the platform.

Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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.
2.4
Roadmap

Roadmap

Roadmap begins in 2016 with the development of the sphere social application for Android and IOS. The roadmap is outlined on a quarterly basis and provides vague general milestones. The roadmap shows a year long preparation process throughout 2017 including a pre-sale leading to the culmination for a public ICO in 2018. The milestones of the roadmap are very vague such as “implement social marketplace”, “Complete Trustless and Decentralized Social network” and “More Features Coming”. There is a claim of a GITHUB REPO for the ICO smart contract, however no links are provided and nothing can be found when searching through github. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and to further develop the goals of the project. There is an application on the android/IOS app stores however it is not possible to determine if it is decentralized on a blockchain network or how to use SAT-tokens on the app in its current state. A lot of work and time still required for the project to be completed. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network and has android/IOS apps.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
2.2
Compliance

Compliance

The SAT-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Sphere platform, as it is used for the advertising marketplace. The app is released for public beta on android/IOS, however the fully decentralized application will be ready only well after the ICO, and it seems that as of now the main focus is of the project is to complete the ICO fundraising and then progress toward the advertising marketplace and decentralized application.
The Sphere team has paid only little attention to compliance laws with blanket statments that one must not be in a country such as the USA or Singapore in order to participate in the ICO, however performs no KYC/AML processes to ensure the enforcment of this compliance statment. There is a small ‘terms and conditions’ button that leads to an ‘ICO terms of agreement’ which aims to absolve the company of any liabilities and blatantly aims to change the definitions of words such as “investments and dividends” to “sponsorship and rewards”. The SAT-tokens will only be used as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges until the decentralized advertising marketplace is released. *(1) on compliance attention since T&C appears unprofessional and unscrupulous – definitions of words cannot be changed legally and nothing is done to ensure compliance with security laws.*

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
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.
2.0
Company and Team

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with marketing, tech. project management, systems/software engineering, and social media . The team has no background in blockchain, cryptocurrency or smart contract projects. One advisor has experience in blockchain archtecture.
Only half of the members have LinkedIn links on the website however only half of those links have profiles with actual credentials, only one of the core team members is fully dedicated to the Sphere project, with some members having no software/tech experience at all.
11 Employees. 15 Advisors.
Positives: The CEO is fully dedicated to the project.
Negatives: The team has unverifiable credentials and is not fully dedicated to the project; core team has no experience in blockchain, crypto or smart contract projects; and very few team members have tech experience.

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?

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.
1.8
Token Sale

Token Sale

Token Value during ICO: 1 SAT = 14 cents USD.
– 1,000,000,000 tokens will be created. (Should tokens go unsold, they will be destroyed.)
– 65% of available tokens will be made accessible to buyers through the ICO.
– 1% reserved for team and advisory staff.
– 17% will be reserved for the social network
– 9% will be reserved for the company
– 8% will be reserved for Bounties
*General statement that if the soft cap is not reached then crypto will be returned, however what that soft cap is, is not said.*
Social media presence exists, however it seems as though most social media presence has been developed via bounties rather than organic interest in the project.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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.

Product

The product has a public beta released on the android/IOS app store and is easy to sign up for. There is a claim for a GitHub repo for the ICO smart contract, however no links are provided and no repo can be found when github is searched. The main focus of the team is to complete the ICO and to create an advertising platform and marketplace after the ICO. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and the decentralized mainnet will not be released for several months or maybe not until next year.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the social media industry involves anywhere from 2 to 3 billion people.
Competitors: Steemit, Nexus, Social X

Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own dapp for social media, aiming to decentralize such centralized application as Facebook. There is a disruptive advantage as, in theory, it would enable further decentralization of centralized applications such as FB, and would allow for social media privacy and control over social media data created on the dapp. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent dapp, however in theory ETH alone could accomplish this as well. The system aims to be fully decentralized in the future, however it is not clear how it intends to accomplish full decentralization as in its current form it is completely centralized. Pontentially disruptive since FB is completely centralized.

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.)?

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.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper looks more like a large pitch-deck than a whitepaper. It is very simple and provides a low level analysis of the problems of social media of today, how blockchain can solve these problems, and how Sphere intends on providing a specific and robust blockchain solution. The whitepaper provides a basic business plan and how the potential technology can make a change. Provides no reveiw of current competition and provides no legal review or agreements of the platform.

Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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.

Roadmap

Roadmap begins in 2016 with the development of the sphere social application for Android and IOS. The roadmap is outlined on a quarterly basis and provides vague general milestones. The roadmap shows a year long preparation process throughout 2017 including a pre-sale leading to the culmination for a public ICO in 2018. The milestones of the roadmap are very vague such as “implement social marketplace”, “Complete Trustless and Decentralized Social network” and “More Features Coming”. There is a claim of a GITHUB REPO for the ICO smart contract, however no links are provided and nothing can be found when searching through github. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and to further develop the goals of the project. There is an application on the android/IOS app stores however it is not possible to determine if it is decentralized on a blockchain network or how to use SAT-tokens on the app in its current state. A lot of work and time still required for the project to be completed. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network and has android/IOS apps.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Compliance

The SAT-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Sphere platform, as it is used for the advertising marketplace. The app is released for public beta on android/IOS, however the fully decentralized application will be ready only well after the ICO, and it seems that as of now the main focus is of the project is to complete the ICO fundraising and then progress toward the advertising marketplace and decentralized application.
The Sphere team has paid only little attention to compliance laws with blanket statments that one must not be in a country such as the USA or Singapore in order to participate in the ICO, however performs no KYC/AML processes to ensure the enforcment of this compliance statment. There is a small ‘terms and conditions’ button that leads to an ‘ICO terms of agreement’ which aims to absolve the company of any liabilities and blatantly aims to change the definitions of words such as “investments and dividends” to “sponsorship and rewards”. The SAT-tokens will only be used as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges until the decentralized advertising marketplace is released. *(1) on compliance attention since T&C appears unprofessional and unscrupulous – definitions of words cannot be changed legally and nothing is done to ensure compliance with security laws.*

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
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.

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with marketing, tech. project management, systems/software engineering, and social media . The team has no background in blockchain, cryptocurrency or smart contract projects. One advisor has experience in blockchain archtecture.
Only half of the members have LinkedIn links on the website however only half of those links have profiles with actual credentials, only one of the core team members is fully dedicated to the Sphere project, with some members having no software/tech experience at all.
11 Employees. 15 Advisors.
Positives: The CEO is fully dedicated to the project.
Negatives: The team has unverifiable credentials and is not fully dedicated to the project; core team has no experience in blockchain, crypto or smart contract projects; and very few team members have tech experience.

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?

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.

Token Sale

Token Value during ICO: 1 SAT = 14 cents USD.
– 1,000,000,000 tokens will be created. (Should tokens go unsold, they will be destroyed.)
– 65% of available tokens will be made accessible to buyers through the ICO.
– 1% reserved for team and advisory staff.
– 17% will be reserved for the social network
– 9% will be reserved for the company
– 8% will be reserved for Bounties
*General statement that if the soft cap is not reached then crypto will be returned, however what that soft cap is, is not said.*
Social media presence exists, however it seems as though most social media presence has been developed via bounties rather than organic interest in the project.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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.

One thought on “Sphere Social

  1. CBCO Reply

    Good potential ICO . I see a lot of good uses for the network. facebook anonymity equivalent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews