FansUnite

FansUnite is a sports betting company that aims to provide cheaper, more secure, verifiable and transparent online sports betting.

About FansUnite

Fansunite.com is a sports prediction platform that specializes in crowdsourcing sports picks to develop predictive models and data analytics, and which has been utilizing a virtual currency for the past four years.

With its FansUnite virtual currency, users are able to place fantasy wagers with absolutely zero monetary risk, track all their bets, and see their own and their peers’ betting history. The pro membership gives the users access to the top handicappers’ picks of the community, subject to certain criteria such as minimum bets and profit.

Since its founding in 2012, the company raised a total of $392,521 in three rounds and was acquired in August 2016 by Fantasy 6 Sports (a sports entertainment and technology company) for $2 million.

The Concept :

Through Fansunite.io, the team is planning to build the first decentralized sportsbook using the Ethereum blockchain to provide cheaper, more secure, verifiable and transparent betting.

The platform’s characteristics can be summarized as follows:

The Best Odds : FansUnite will charge a 1% margin instead of the 4.7% industry average.  The company claims to be able to offer these odds due to the platform utilizing an ensemble of advanced machine learning algorithms, which enable the risk management team to be  lean and efficient, requiring only a few members.

Fast Payouts : Thanks to a Hybrid Oracle, the platform aims to execute the bettors’ payouts almost immediately after the games end. FansUnite’s Hybrid Oracle will consist of five Data Oracles, each responsible for collecting data from an independent data source, and one Consensus Service, that will handle the business logic of aggregating these data feeds to reach consensus and resolve events. These API feeds update event information quickly, which means members get tokens back in their wallets almost immediately after an event.

Trustless Betting : FansUnite’s goal is to transition control over bet resolution from a third party, such as traditional sportsbooks, to smart contracts within the FansUnite platform. Smart contracts allow two sides to enter into an agreement contingent on the outcome of an event, with funds escrowed from each side prior to the event, and automatic resolution once the Hybrid Oracle resolves an event.

Transparency : Utilizing blockchain technology ensures that there is a concrete and auditable trail of transactions, so members can be assured that the data they are looking at is correct. FansUnite is also planning to make all the bettor transaction history accessible to all users of the platform. The company is relying on Secureplay (which develops blockchain technology allowing for accountability and transparency in fantasy sports) to provide such transparency while maintaining security and privacy.

Technical architecture

 

Ethereum & Smart Contracts

FansUnite will utilize smart contracts to store all the pertinent information required to facilitate trust-less betting on the Ethereum blockchain, which includes:

  • Event information such as start time and participants
  • Bet information such as odds, bet type, and wager amount
  • Oracles selected for providing outcome of the event.

Hybrid Oracle Solution

To grant the veracity of betting results pushed into the platform, FansUnite’s system will employ five Data Oracles, each responsible for requesting data from an independent data source. A Consensus Contract will then cross-match the data  for the resolution of events and bets.

For example if a boxing match is happening between two opponent on a given date, an event will posted in sport betting feeds. The five different oracles will source the same information from five different feeds. If the information is the same, then its pushed into the chain, a new event is created and made available for bettors. It is FansUnite’s way of bypassing biased events and making sure events and outcomes are 100% true.

Managed Server

To reduce gas costs, the team split its Backend operations between the blockchain and a dedicated server. The consensus protocols on event and betting creation will be run outside of the chain.

To keep the platform’s speed optimal the team will also run some of its social components  (discussions, chatting, following users, … ) on traditional databases. That will allow the team to sustain a scalable platform and reduce the costs related to the blockchain transactions drastically.

It is important to note that by using a centralized server to store the platform’s social modules data, FansUnite loses a bit of its claim to build a decentralized sports betting platform.

Dispute Resolution

The platform takes into consideration edge cases, such as disputes. If any member judges the bets results wrong he can trigger a secondary grading of the event by placing a deposit equivalent to the greater of (1) FansUnite Tokens equivalent to $10, or (2) 5% of the disputed amount.

Once done, the FansUnite team will resort to manual review to double check the betting result.

Technical Process :

Event Creation

To create a new event, FansUnite will send frequent requests to independent API sports betting feeds sources. Once  the consensus protocol is run and valid, the event is created on the blockchain and becomes available to bet on.

Bet Submission

New users of the platform have to go through a KYC process to validate they are legally eligible to bet.  Once validated, their public address will be stored  permanently, and any bets submitted from their address will be accepted.

To smoothen the betting process, the members can submit bets directly from their wallets. The platforms also allows members to store their tokens within the platform, if need be, and bet directly from it.

Bet Resolution

Similar to the creation event, requests are going to be sent to API feeds (using an oracle service such as Oraclize) for the outcome of the event. Once consensus is reached across all five oracles, the outcome will be set on the event and trigger the resolution of bets made.

Tokens (FAN)

The FAN token will be used for all platform activities , including betting, paying out players, and rewards for participation. There is a finite supply of FAN (700,000,000), which is  intended to circulate among users and within the FansUnite platform continuously (with no burning or deflation mechanism).

FansUnite Token holders will have the ability to choose the development path for the platform and to vote on on its features and services road map.

Tokens withheld (70,000,000) will be distributed between founders, advisors, and employees, subject to a lock-up schedule over 72 weeks. They will be distributed (20% at a time) from April 9th, 2018 to March 11th, 2019.

Community Incentive Program (80,000,000) includes tokens that will be allocated to both new members to kickstart their first betting experiences and reward the alreading existing bettors based on a set of metrics such as: betting volume, betting rationale, number of followers, and social sharing.

The Platform Supply Pool (200,000,000), which will be seeded with FansUnite tokens, will serve as the pool into which all losses are collected and out of which all winnings are paid. This pool is set to grow gradually, with large betting volumes and appropriately adjusted odds, via a portion of the 1% margin. This portion will be at least one quarter, and the remainder will go towards covering operational costs.

The Platform Supply Pool size is correlated with the betting volume as it serves as a safety net in case the wins exceed  the losses. Stabilization mechanics can be triggered in case of extreme expansion (too many losses) or extreme depletion (too many wins). In case of expansion the team will redistribute tokens through its Community Incentive Program. In case of depletion, the team will pour a portion of its margin tokens into the pool and, in extreme cases, use a portion of the withheld tokens.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.2
Product
Readiness

Is the product 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.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

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

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.2
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally disruptive.
Need for 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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.4
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

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?

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

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasiblity

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)

Compliance

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.6
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

Product

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product 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.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
3.2

Use of Blockchain

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally disruptive.
Need for 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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.2

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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?

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:
3.4

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasiblity

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
3.0

Compliance

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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:
3.6

Token Sale

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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