Titanium

Titanium's goal is to create the decentralized version of Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Rackspace

About Titanium

TBIS’s self-proclaimed mission is “to leverage the power of the immutable blockchain to provide virtual infrastructure services for businesses and individuals, creating a Titanium clad guarantee of reliability which had previously been wholly impossible.” Its “core objective and primary goal” is “the creation and propagation of a shockproof distributed network infrastructure capable of replacing the bloated and inefficient hardware foundation upon which the internet of today is based. In essence: to build a better internet that cannot be controlled or destroyed by anyone and is open for all.”

TBIS aims to make it possible for any and all network devices (from simple routers to cryptocurrency miners) to be virtualized and exist in a complete cloud- and blockchain- based environment, enabling users to set up enterprise level infrastructure from the comfort of their own homes, without having to install any rack servers, routers, load balancers, or other network components beyond what is needed to access the network. Essentially, the distributed, blockchain-based equivalent of Google Cloud Platform / AWS / Azure.

To this end, TBIS has devised a system made up of the following core components:

  1. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS): This is planned to include virtualization software that enables the creation of network components (such as servers, routers, switches, etc.) in a distributed environment, a platform for creating and maintaining distributed enterprise IT environments, website hosting via a virtual server system, and management software with “autonomous healing” and security functions for all monitored elements and network components.
  2. Desktop as a Service (DaaS):  This will make it possible to host personal encrypted computing environments on the Titanium cloud, accessed by users from any terminal or device via a custom, ultra-light operating system. TBIS appears to be extremely confident in its ability to handle any and all security and privacy issues with its “Titanium Hydra Fault Tolerance Suite” and “SHAKE256 Titanium Sponge Cryptographic Techniques”, but neither is explained much further.
  3. Company as a Service (CaaS): This will be an automated wizard that allows users to start new businesses, facilitated by smart contracts that handle business activity such as registering licenses, creating bank accounts, filing trademarks and patents, incorporating, leasing of office space or equipment, employment, securing advertising space, domain registration and host acquisition, etc.
  4. CryptoEscrow: This will allow users to pay for online purchases with any supported cryptocurrency via an Ethereum based escrow service that makes sure payments are released only upon verification of delivery to the correct recipient. These smart contracts will be comprised of a SHA256 hash split between the buyer and the seller, where both parts of the hash are required to release the funds. This service will be accessible via a very simple smartphone interface, making it “so easy, your grandmother could do it.”
  5. Bring Your Own Cloud (BYOC): This service will provide users with a secure computing environment for cryptocurrency mining or server operation, for which, in return, they will contribute hashpower to the network. The service will be based on “a PoW ERC20 token which generates an ever-changing hash for communications encryption.” According to the whitepaper, the service will rely on microcomputers (to be acquired from TBIS), which will completely automate the process of setting up miners and servers.
  6. DEXchange: The “TBIS Titanium Exchange” will provide initial support for the top ten fiat currencies used worldwide, and allow for exchange trading with the top one-hundred cryptocurrencies as per https://www.coinmarketcap.com in an entirely decentralized fashion.
  7. Instant ICO Incubator (III): This will provide end-to-end token launch services. A “Titanium Clad Accreditation will be created and granted to ICOs that have undergone a deep-dive due diligence by Titanium personnel.” Titanium will require such ICOs to have both a Better Business Bureau (BBB) and Duns & Bradstreet accreditation.

TBIS says its system will monitor network health, shift loads to redundant nodes in case of failure, and limit the impact of DDoS attacks, all by virtue of the equipment existing only virtually and residing on the decentralized Ethereum blockchain: “Even if several thousand nodes experienced a system failure, there would still be zero outage time, and perhaps, only a performance degradation of the TBIS services being delivered.”

While the thought and planning that have gone into this scheme are mildly impressive, it still comes off as  a pipe dream. The company presents no concrete schematics or development plans (not to mention an MVP), and admits no limitations to its proposal (such as those associated with transaction costs and strain on the network). It just doesn’t seem feasible.

Nevertheless, TBIS is launching its BAR token. The BAR will not be the only means of paying for products and services in the TBIS ecosystem; Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Monero (XMR), Verge (XVG), and maybe others later on, will also be accepted. It’s notable that Verge is one of the platform’s accepted coins, seeing as TBIS’ President and CEO Michael Stollaire appears to be involved in it as well. The BAR will, however, grant users a 5% discount on purchases.

TBIS says there is a pre-determined minimum fundraising goal based on what is required to complete and release the platform, and that all contributions will be refunded if it is not reached by the end of the crowdsale, but fails to mention what this goal amount is, exactly. The company also says it is “implementing a completion-based release model”, whereby the team will open a vote for every milestone, giving active platform users and/or BAR owners an opportunity to vote on whether the milestone is complete or not. The whitepaper windingly describes a process whereby 1% of the total supply of BAR tokens will be allocated to a reserve pool tied to two launch milestones for which votes will be opened. Release of funds from the reserve pool will occur if the milestone is deemed complete (by majority vote) or at the team’s discretion, if it is deemed incomplete in three consecutive votes. The whitepaper also states that “the TBIS team will lock 30% and 10% of the token sale proceeds until the completion of the first and second noted milestones, respectively. The specific amounts locked may change according to the results of the token sale and the TBIS team’s needs.” In other words, there are no actual restrictions on the team’s use of the raised funds and the tokens remaining in its possession.

2.6
Product

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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.
1.0
Use of Blockchain

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

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.)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
1.8
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
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.?

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
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.
1.8
Roadmap

Roadmap

Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
1.8
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?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
2.2
Company and Team

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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.
1.6
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)?

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?

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

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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.
Product Score:
2.6

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

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.)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.0

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
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.?

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
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:
1.8

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
1.8

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)?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
1.8

Company and Team

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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:
2.2

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)?

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?

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.
Token Sale Score:
1.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website