ICO Rating

Papyrus

Papyrus is a decentralized platform for the digital advertising industry.

About Papyrus

Papyrus is a decentralized advertising platform built on blockchain technology.  They describe themselves as “the world’s first fully comprehensive and highly scalable decentralized ecosystem for digital advertising which radically improves programmatic advertising stack to provide efficient, transparent and mutually beneficial environment for users, publishers, advertisers and decentralized applications (DApp) developers using blockchain architecture.”

After bushwhacking through that wordy sentence, one can conclude that essentially what Papyrus are aiming to make is a more efficient advertising platform, for all parties involved, using blockchain to replace middlemen such as Google AdWords and Microsoft Bing.

A few of the problems Papyrus lists on their whitepaper with regard to the current digital advertising industry are: poor user experience, user animosity, lack of data privacy, long and inefficient chains of intermediaries between advertisers and publishers, fraud, and inefficient value exchange.

Expanding on that, some of Papyrus’ main goals and objectives are to minimize the risks for advertising businesses from excessive government regulation as well as security breaches and criminal attacks. Moreover, Papyrus wishes to render the current system – which they feel is tedious and slow, devoured by transactional bureaucracy and corresponding offline paperwork –  useless, and in its stead bring forth an economic system that incentivizes the developer community to produce more and more efficient applications as well as dynamically balance the interests of users, publishers, advertisers and developers alike.

How does it work?

The Papyrus project aims to solve the existing issues in the digital advertising industry by creating a decentralized ecosystem for the exchange of value between users, publishers and advertisers.

To better understand Papyrus, consider the way the programmatic advertising ecosystem currently works. Data management platforms (DMPs) collect and store all the users’ data on central databases. Demand side platforms (DSPs) use this data and work with marketers/advertisers and help them access ad spaces, while supply side platforms (SSPs) enable publishers to sell their ad spaces. These transactions are enabled by multiple ad exchanges (AppNexus, Microsoft Ad Exchange for instance) and ad networks (AdSense, Clicksor, AdWords to name a few).

The Papyrus ecosystem runs with the help of dApps (Decentralized Apps). Papyrus will create decentralized protocols on how the ecosystem should function on the Ethereum blockchain. Using these protocols developers will be able to build any kind of dApps (which will be bound by smart contracts based on the aforementioned decentralized protocols) with integrated advertising monetization economies for use within the ecosystem.

For example, Papyrus will create a default dApp for setting up the user’s account which will manage his/her identity and configure their preferences regarding exposure to ads and data sharing. Using this dApp,  users will have the opportunity to control their own data and earn compensation for sharing their interests and other relevant ad targeting information with advertisers. There will be one default dApp for publishers which will identify them and create personalized advertising policies. Key elements of the advertising ecosystem like the DSPs and SSPs will have their own third party dApps and will be governed by Papyrus’ underlying decentralized protocols.

https://i1.wp.com/cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*YBQufZ93GakFg9x7.png?w=800&ssl=1

Layer 1 — Papyrus Core

The Core is the very basic layer of ecosystem governance which includes the upgradeable Papyrus DAO, smart contracts to maintain registries of different ecosystem participants, contracts for identity management, and decentralized real time bidding (RTB) support. The Papyrus DAO is responsible for ecosystem governance, dispute resolution processes, voting on upgrade proposals and more.

Layer 2 — Papyrus Scalability

This layer includes technologies providing the scalability and performance consistency necessary for Papyrus applications in real world programmatic advertising, such as the decentralized RTB (dRTB) event log storage, state channels network, and protocol; The Papyrus ecosystem will introduce a dRTB protocol that will serve as an extension of the traditional OpenRTB protocol.

Layer 3 — Papyrus AdTech Infrastructure.

The Papyrus AdTech Infrastructure layer includes all the components required to establish a complete digital advertising cycle within the Papyrus ecosystem and to create gateways with traditional adtech systems.These include SDKs and libraries providing APIs for the usage of user data,  decentralized SSP and DSP implementations and gateways, and also an implementation of a unique market participant called an ‘auditor’ for fraud prevention and  reputation management.

Layer 4 — Papyrus dApps

On the basis of the three layers of Papyrus architecture, developers will be able to build any kind of dApps with integrated advertising monetization economies for use within the ecosystem. All dApps integrated with Papyrus will constitute this final 4th layer.

There are already several projects that aim to leverage blockchain technology in the area of digital advertising. Some aim to challenge a certain aspect of the digital advertising industry, while others wish to revolutionize the entire digital advertising industry – BAT and QChain are notable examples. Papyrus seems to be like an ecosystem which can integrate a project like BAT within it in the form of a dApp. Papyrus is expected to solve the issue of scalability relatively fast, as the network infrastructure will be similar to Raiden Network or Lightning Network which will help it to support millions of ad impressions every second.

The Token Sale

Papyrus is planning to use a milestone-based approach and schedule several token generation (“TGE”) rounds: one on October 12th; another, expected in the coming months, along with the deployment of permanent smart contracts and pilot integrations; and a third, no earlier than 2019 when the platform achieves traction and volume, for which tokens will be already allocated and locked. During the first TGE Round, Papyrus will be building out its prototype ecosystem and begin pilot integrations with partners (including antifraud vendors, publishers, SSPs and DSPs).

Papyrus will be introducing two different tokens the: PRP (Papyrus Prototype Tokens) for use in the prototype system), and PPR (Papyrus Permanent Tokens) for use in the permanent version deployed along with the second TGE round. All 100% of prototype tokens will be exchanged to 15% of the overall permanent tokens. Both PRP and PPR are ERC20-compliant and will be used for payments, compensations, proof-of-stake deposits, service fees, and governance (voting rights).  

More information can be found under our ‘ICO details’ section.

3.0
Product

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
2.8
Use of Blockchain

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 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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully 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.
2.6
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Comprehensiveness

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

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.?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
3.2
Roadmap

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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.
2.4
Compliance

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
4.0
Company and Team

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
3.0
Token Sale

Token Sale

Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
3.0

Use of Blockchain

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 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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully 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:
2.8

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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.?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
2.6

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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:
3.2

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)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
4.0

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
3.0