SIRIN LABS

The first open-source, cyber-protected, blockchain-enabled smartphone and PC.

About SIRIN LABS

Sirin Labs, developer of the ultra-secure $14,000 mobile phone Solarin, has pivoted from luxury to mass market devices and is conducting a crowdsale to support its latest development: Finney, the first open-source, cyber-protected, blockchain-enabled smartphone and PC.

Sirin Labs was founded in 2014, and in 2016 launched the Solarin, a highly secure, high-end smartphone that incorporates state-of-the-art hardware and software security to provide 24/7 cyber protection, including a private zone for encrypted calls and messages. The company is now utilizing its technology to make the same level of security more readily available (and affordable) to holders of crypto currencies and assets, and to create a secure and efficient network of decentralized apps and services that connect the devices and enable peer-to-peer resource sharing managed with micro-payments.

The Finney smartphone, with a target price of ~$999, will feature a 5.2-inch QHD display, 256GB of internal memory storage, 8GB RAM, a 16MP main camera, and a 12MP wide-angle selfie camera. The Finney PC, a thin client with a target price of ~$799, will feature a 24” 2K display, 8GB memory, 256GB storage, and biometric security sensors; additional computational power (GPU/CPU/RAM) will be available via a P2P resource sharing protocol or a cloud based service.

Sirin Labs ICO ReviewSirin Labs ICO Review

 

Finney devices will run on Shield OS – Sirin Labs’ Android-based ultra-secure operating system – and operate on an independent blockchain network powered by IOTA’s Tangle technology and Sirin Labs’ own security framework. The system is designed to support inherent blockchain applications such as a crypto wallet, secure exchange access, encrypted communications, and P2P sharing and transactions, so as to enable secure and reliable handling and exchange of crypto currencies and assets, as well as participation in the network powered by the company’s SRN token. While Finney devices will provide users with enhanced crypto security in general, they will themselves form an independent blockchain network, “free from centralized backbones and mining centers,” based on the “distributed, scalable, light-weight, ASIC-resistant ledger” at the heart of Shield OS. Finney devices will also utilize a tamper resistant hardware secure element to store confidential and cryptographic data such as encryption keys and biometric templates. Furthermore, both hardware and software platforms are to be released as open-source.

Shield OS is designed to provide a built-in cold-storage crypto wallet (with IP address hiding and MAC address randomization), as well as secure P2P resource sharing. The built-in wallet is protected by the company’s BlockShield technology, which provides a secure area protected by a physical switch, such that when the wallet is not in use, it is physically and electronically disconnected from the network. BlockShield also includes a cyber-protection suite with a behavior-based Intrusion Prevention System (IPS), blockchain- based full tampering proof, and three-factor authentication (biometric, lock pattern, and behavioral), and provides secure communications as well as an application container. The wallet is designed to support multiple accounts and various cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, Dash, Zcash, Ripple, Stratis, and Dogecoin, in addition to Sirin Labs’ SRN. Access to private keys will be available only to the hardware wallet module, but API access will be enabled via a wallet interface service. P2P resource sharing between devices will be handled via a Decentralized Resource Sharing Manager, responsible for allocating, authorizing, and sharing resources over the decentralized network, with a background service to manage SRN payments according to a dynamic cost protocol. The DRSM will manage resources such as device sensor data, network connections, CPU and GPU time, and device storage.

The Finney ecosystem will be powered by a decentralized app store run by the community, benefiting from built-in trusted and secure P2P resource sharing and fast, fee-less, micro-payments between users. Sirin Labs will share an SDK to enable the community to develop apps that benefit from decentralization and the devices’ P2P functionality. Developers will be able to create a diverse range of micropayment-based applications and services for sharing data (e.g. weather or traffic updates) and resources (e.g. connectivity or computational power). The Shield OS will provide the virtualization layer with accurate metering of shared resources, and open protocols will be provided for sharing resources both directly and over the cloud.

SRN tokens will be the means of payment to developers and service providers within the ecosystem. According to the whitepaper, users will pay developers 100% of their subscription fees directly, including any third party services for auditing, parental control, etc. they wish to employ. Notably, SRN tokens will not only be the means of payment for apps and services, but will also be required to purchase the devices themselves, although details are not yet available. Apparently, the company’s revenue will not be based on fees, but rather on the devices themselves (including partnerships with OEMs), as well as on apps it will provide and operate (encrypted calls and messages are given as an example).

In the meantime, while the Finney devices and network are being developed, SRN holders will be able to use their tokens to:

  • purchase Solarin products including the Solarin smartphone, Beryllium earphone, and international charger, at 10% discount off maximum retail price,
  • purchase apps and services provided and operated by Sirin Labs, such as encrypted calls and messages and a cyber-security suite,
  • pre-order Finney devices at a 20% discount off maximum retail price.

Once the Finney blockchain is launched, SRN tokens will be used to:

  • purchase Finney products (phone, PC),
  • purchase apps and services provided and operated by Sirin Labs, such as encrypted calls and messages and a cyber-security suite, as well as P2P resource sharing,
  • send and receive payments for shared resources (internet, CPU/GPU, charging),
  • purchase apps and services on the dApp store,
  • warranty, repair, and other service packages,
  • other micropayments.

The Solarin is available for purchase at Sirin Labs’ store in London as well as online, and the secure calls and messages application and services can be purchased via the company’s website.

Sirin Labs is headed by founder and CEO Moshe Hogeg, an Israeli serial entrepreneur, who also founded the Alignment Blockchain Hub (which provides consultation and backing for early-stage blockchain projects) and Singulariteam (an investment fund for early-stage technology companies), as well as Mobli (a photo and video sharing platform), all headquartered in Tel-Aviv, Israel. The company’s website presents a team of 40 team members including co-CEO Zvi Landau, VP R&D Amit Krelman, CTO Eli Ben-Ami, CFO Guy Elhanani, VP Product Guy Shirazi, CMO (marketing) Nimrod May, CSO (security) Oren Ben-Tovim, and others. The company’s advisors include, among others, Bancor co-founder Guy Benartzi, Zimperium founder Zuk Avraham, and former Sony Mobile CTO Takeshi Ito.

Note that according to the roadmap, the smartphone won’t become available for sale unless the company raises at least $25,000,000 in its ICO. Similarly, a minimum of $50,000,000 is required for developing the PC, and a minimum of $75,000,000 for OEM versions and device models to become available. However, a minimum raise of $25 million will enable the company to make its Shield OS available to OEMs.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

4.0
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

4.2
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

4.2
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?

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.?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.

Whitepaper

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.8
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

4.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional and top-tier.

Compliance

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

4.4
Company and Team
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Meeting and exceeding 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

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Exceptional presence and interest, having credibility.

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
Product Score:
4.0

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.2

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?

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.?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.
Whitepaper Score:
4.2

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
3.8

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional and top-tier.
Compliance Score:
4.0

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Meeting and exceeding 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:
4.4

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Exceptional presence and interest, having credibility.
Token Sale Score:
3.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website