First and foremost, it's an ICO involving Ethereum. It is identical to other ETH distributed processing concepts but claims to be fresh and new -- it mentions Gridcoin specifically to point out flaws that do not exist (FUD) and information that is bias in context. For example, they say GRC uses "The Last Generation of Blockchain Tech." They are saying this while this "Last Generation" is $45 billion dollars secure and what they claim to be the latest generation (ETH) isn't even secure yet -- the dao, parity, etc.. They don't mention EOS and they don't mention Golem or SONM or iEx. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're knowledgeable -- so why did they make these choices? Beyond that:

• Hype: Latest technology! And with this new untested technology (crypto/eth) you somehow get the best security!
  
  
• "Serial Entrepreneur" as a CEO
  
  
• "The majority of my career has been occupied by the challenging task of commercializing university-based research discoveries into meaningful products and services." "Commercializing U-B research" means taking research from people who know what they're doing and finding a way to make money off of it, often at the researchers expense. It takes research funded by tax dollars (at least in the US) and gives it to private corporations. It is a major reason medicine is so expensive and why new research is turned into a product so slowly. UBR commercialization as a business model is itself a scam.
  
  
• The language they use is future tense: "Are building" vs "have built."
  
  
• Funding stops after the crowdsale. ??? I guess they expect to live and fund off of their hoards of SPARC which I suppose they think will be worth something for some reason. That's a huge gamble for a company wanting to develop something over several years.
  
  
• "Supply creates demand" ??? Standard startup con line.
  
  
• Their timeline appears to be "Once A then B" which gives them the freedom to ignore the timeline.

These folks appear to prioritize profit over development. Their intentions seem to be to make money, not to advance distributed processing. And for people who have run three supposedly successful businesses, their website and information is horrible.

The main reason is the ICO part though. If you have a real product worth funding you don't need to have an ICO in which you attempt to get funding from people who have no knowledge of the industry and who are most likely in the crypto world to speculate.

Still, they could be legitimate and come out with something amazing, but I'm not going to hold my breath.