ICO Rating

WaBi

Wabi is a digital token backed by safe products.

About WaBi

WaBi is a blockchain based loyalty token issued by Walimai, a company that provides a products traceability mechanism to consumers. Walimai started back in 2014 but only started commercializing its functioning application by 2016 in China.

Walimai’s solution consists of an RFID (Radio-frequency identification) label that sticks to the product and can be scanned by consumers with a phone app to check a product’s authenticity.  The label contains information on the whole life cycle of the product such as authenticity, background, storage location and more. The labels used by Walimai (1) have a unique code for every single product (2) contain dynamic data frequently changed and synced with Walimai’s servers to avoid cloning (3) are made of very fragile antennas to make moving the same label between several products impossible.  

The purpose of Walimai’s ICO and conversion to blockchain in general is unclear as there is no proven technical need to involve blockchain technology. The team claims adopting blockchain and a token based system to par a meta-fragility problem, referring to users losing trust in Walimai’s process of securing all interactions an RFID can have along its supply chain.

The WaBi token’s purpose is to incentivize consumers to scan products. A dynamic that the Walimai team claims is crucial to its counterfeit detection system, even though there are several issues arising from this subject, one being what Walimai refers to as the ‘voting paradox’. The ‘voting paradox’ claims that with a sufficient level of trust in the Walimai brand, consumers might not feel the need to scan the product at all, thus not updating the system. Thus, Walimai has to incentivize users to scan and authenticate their products which creates a very delicate balance.  The tokens can be used by the users to get discounts on products tagged with Walimai’s RFID or to buy Walimai protected products.

Walimai protected products

To kickstart the system, buyers of products protected by Walimai technology will receive some initial tokens when they start buying.The tokens can be used by the consumers to buy more Walimai protected products or to claim discounts and bonuses. Throughout the whitepaper and the company’s documents, there is a slight forced use of blockchain related keywords without necessarily matching their context, such as “proof of purchase” in which they simply refer to a customer that bought a product and “mining” by which they mean the action of scanning a product. It might be a way to attract  potential investors that might not have an extensive understanding of the proper terminology.  The necessity to shift their technology to Blockchain and run an ICO with such a big raise amount is not built on any solid argument. The White Paper hints from time to time to some blockchain technology advantages but doesn’t connect them with  actual consumers need. Another thing is Walimai’s explanation of how certain goods are identified as ‘fake goods’ is sub par, at best.

By August 2017, the Walimai team closed its presale cycle in which it hit the max Walimai requested and raised 300.000 USD. The team is using said amount to power up the ICO. The tokens sold in the presale are still undergoing a lock period, which should last roughly 3 to 6 months. One might be concerned, however, about the lack of a soft cap. In general, not determining a small cap either points towards greed or the company didn’t feel the need to specify a minimum amount for the project to kick off.  Another point regarding the token sale is that the hard cap, currently set at $11.5M, seems to be way too high and no where do Walimai explain the reasoning for requesting such a hefty amount in regards to their plans.

Overall, Walimai are a peculiar breed. They have a proper product that’s useful and is already applied on the market.  They claim to have signed contracts with 3 physical baby stores to set up a dedicated ‘Walimai shelf’ at their locations. Their team is composed out of competent figures, it seems, and their PreICO reached its raise amount defined meaning there is some support towards their goals. However, it is very unclear as to why they need a blockchain or a token to keep doing what they do. Sure, a blockchain provides many advantages, but in light of dozens of ICOs raising immense amounts of money for no apparent reason these past few months, one might question Walimai’s real motives.

 

 

3.8
Product

Product

Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
2.6
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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
3.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.
3.2
Compliance

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?

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?

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)
3.8
Company and Team

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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.
2.2
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Product

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
Product Score:
3.8

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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.6

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Whitepaper Score:
2.2

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.
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)?

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?

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?

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:
3.2

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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:
3.8

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.2