Synapse

Synapse is creating the world’s first decentralized data and intelligence marketplace of researchers, trainers, processors, and contractors that can be accessed programmatically at any time.

About Synapse

Synapse is a platform that incentivizes users to share their data and contribute to a decentralized AI marketplace. Users are rewarded with SYN tokens which can be used to purchase data and subscribe to AI services powered by the data that is collected by the Synapse network.

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?

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

At a high level, the platform incentivizes users to share data. This concept is not unique to Synapse, and even within the realm of blockchain-related projects, Synapse faces considerable competition with other organizations that aim to develop a platform for decentralized AI powered by crowd sourced data. The GitHub page shows very low levels of activity, and contains only a repository for the token contracts and presentation slides for an “Introduction to Solidity”.

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?

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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

SYN is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as reward for sharing data on the Synapse platform. Hence, there is no significant need for a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform. There is little discussion with regard to the value proposition of the tokens. The level of blockchain innovation is quite low. The platform is simply incentivizing users and using blockchain in order to create a tokenized reward system.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.2
Whitepaper
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?

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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 22 pages. The document begins with the value proposition for the platform, but there is no significant discussion regarding the value proposition of the token. The technology plan is presented in low levels of detail. The document briefly discusses the different components of the platform and how they relate to each other, but technical specifics are absent. The business plan is also presented in low levels detail and content. There is a lack of quantitative information regarding the business model of the platform including reward details. Overall, the whitepaper lacks specific information about the platform, especially with regards to the token.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.0
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
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 Spring 2018 to Winter 2018 and contains fairly low levels of detail. Development is grouped into four stages that lack quantitative/measurable milestones. The development roadmap gives a brief idea of the intended direction of the organization, but the milestones need to be defined in greater detail.

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?

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?

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.

Compliance

The whitepaper does not extensively discuss legal considerations regarding the platform or token sale. A brief disclaimer at the end of the document states that “there is no warranty or assurance that the process for creating Tokens will be uninterrupted or error-free.” It is not explicitly that whether tokens should be considered securities. It is unknown if KYC will be used for the token sale and whether any jurisdictions are not permitted to participate.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The small team comprised of 6 individuals is listed on the Synapse website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles (for most team members). In the whitepaper, only 3 team members are listed. The skill set of the team is skewed towards business development over technology. Investigating the LinkedIn profile of the CEO shows a lack of large-scale projects directly involved with AI. There is a single developer on the team that is quite young (graduated from University in 2017), and as a result, lacks extensive professional experience. There do not seem to be any team members with experience working on large-scale blockchain-related projects.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

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 SYN tokens is 1 billion (33% is for sale, 33% is for developer fund, 33% is for the company, and 1% is for token sale costs). Vesting periods are not clearly outlined in the document. The allocation of funds is also not described. The soft cap is $50MM USD and the hard cap is unspecified.

Product

At a high level, the platform incentivizes users to share data. This concept is not unique to Synapse, and even within the realm of blockchain-related projects, Synapse faces considerable competition with other organizations that aim to develop a platform for decentralized AI powered by crowd sourced data. The GitHub page shows very low levels of activity, and contains only a repository for the token contracts and presentation slides for an “Introduction to Solidity”.

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?

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:
2.0

Use of Blockchain

SYN is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as reward for sharing data on the Synapse platform. Hence, there is no significant need for a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform. There is little discussion with regard to the value proposition of the tokens. The level of blockchain innovation is quite low. The platform is simply incentivizing users and using blockchain in order to create a tokenized reward system.

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?

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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

The whitepaper is quite short at 22 pages. The document begins with the value proposition for the platform, but there is no significant discussion regarding the value proposition of the token. The technology plan is presented in low levels of detail. The document briefly discusses the different components of the platform and how they relate to each other, but technical specifics are absent. The business plan is also presented in low levels detail and content. There is a lack of quantitative information regarding the business model of the platform including reward details. Overall, the whitepaper lacks specific information about the platform, especially with regards to the token.

Category Breakdown
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?

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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
2.2

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Spring 2018 to Winter 2018 and contains fairly low levels of detail. Development is grouped into four stages that lack quantitative/measurable milestones. The development roadmap gives a brief idea of the intended direction of the organization, but the milestones need to be defined in greater detail.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.0

Compliance

The whitepaper does not extensively discuss legal considerations regarding the platform or token sale. A brief disclaimer at the end of the document states that “there is no warranty or assurance that the process for creating Tokens will be uninterrupted or error-free.” It is not explicitly that whether tokens should be considered securities. It is unknown if KYC will be used for the token sale and whether any jurisdictions are not permitted to participate.

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?

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?

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.
Compliance Score:
1.8

Company and Team

The small team comprised of 6 individuals is listed on the Synapse website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles (for most team members). In the whitepaper, only 3 team members are listed. The skill set of the team is skewed towards business development over technology. Investigating the LinkedIn profile of the CEO shows a lack of large-scale projects directly involved with AI. There is a single developer on the team that is quite young (graduated from University in 2017), and as a result, lacks extensive professional experience. There do not seem to be any team members with experience working on large-scale 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?

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?

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

Token Sale

The total number of SYN tokens is 1 billion (33% is for sale, 33% is for developer fund, 33% is for the company, and 1% is for token sale costs). Vesting periods are not clearly outlined in the document. The allocation of funds is also not described. The soft cap is $50MM USD and the hard cap is unspecified.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

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:
1.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website