Atonomi

The secure ledger of things

[Short general description]: Atonomi provides a security protocol and infrastructure to enable billions of IoT devices to have trusted interoperability for both data and commerce. Atonomi is a crypto venture that plans on laying out the groundwork that has been needed for a while now so that the IoT industry can continue to grow and set people on the path to mass-adoption. This crypto venture is being worked on by CENTRI Technology (www.centritechnology.com) , a well known name in the IoT industry, the goal of this project is to provide the world with a secure IoT network that will allow users to identify IoT devices and also determine how “trustable” they are. Atonomi will introduce an entire ecosystem where people will be able to share and receive data from IoT devices and will also have its own native currency that will play a role in incentivizing the sharing of data.

 

[Main contribution proposal]: The Atonomi platform will make use of CENTRI’s Secure Communication Service which will enable the creation of secure communication channels on the platform within 3 milliseconds. Atonomi will also have CENTRI’s Multi-layer Crypto Key Management that will allow the platform to have decentralized crypto key management with a high scalability factor, another aspect of CENTRI’s technology that Atonomi will be integrated with shall make indexing and searching of encrypted data on the platform really fast.

1) Low-level protocol for secure IoT, to achieve this, Atonomi enables secure transactions between IoT devices through blockchain-based Identity Registry, which establishes root-of-trust using encrypted whitelist data from participating OEMs/ODMs providing a unique device identity and a public key for each device to be validated onto the Atonomi Network. 

2) Trust and reputation, as part of Atonomi design, including a Reputation Tracking service (allows for automated identification against rogue or compromised devices.

3) Bring past security experience into the market. Atonomi’s parent company CENTRI has pioneered coding and engineering required to provide security solutions. 

 

[Main problems tackled]:

1) Service to establish identity - trusted identity provides a level of insurance

2)  Protocol and system to manage reputation - key enabler of a future consisting of trusted devices securely interacting in an autonomous manner. 

3) Tokens to facilitate services in the Atonomi network. 

4) Extensible arhitecture to be built upon. 

 

[Innovation]:

1) Atonomi smart contracts - each smart contract lists data tuples reference able by public unique identifiers. Identity registration can be conceptualised similarly to a relational database. The Atonomi network includes a metadata field in each tuple for extensibility.  At the same time, these smart contracts will have a manufacturer registry, auditor registry and device registry (all written only by authorised parts. 

2)  Device activation service - supports device ownership transfer with the validation of public/private key pairs and encrypted unique device identifier form the OEM/ODM whitelist to activate new drives onto the device registry.

3) Transaction service creation and maintenance services - creation of digital wallets or related transaction authorisations for devices that may need to support commercial transactions. 

4) Reputation writing and lookup services

5) Transaction validation and facilitation services.

6) Faster and more secure services stack/data authentication

7) End-to end security protocol.

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
5.00 / 5.00
Product
3.67 / 5.00
Token Economics
5.00 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
4.00 / 5.00

Analysis

Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
5
  • 1. Unknown people. No serious background information available.
  • 2. Partial information available, no relevant experience.
  • 3. Background information available, no relevant experience.
  • 4. Solid, relevant background and connections available.
  • 5. Solid, well known, experienced and well connected founders.
Team - Advisors:
What level of commitment, experience and connections do the advisers bring?
5
  • 1. No reputable advisors with relevant experience.
  • 2. Few advisors with little to no relevant experience.
  • 3. Advisers with relevant experience.
  • 4. Reputable advisors with relevant experience and connections.
  • 5. High profile highly experienced, well connected and committed advisors.
Product - Technology Layer:
Is the product innovative? Does it contribute to the blockchain ecosystem?
5
  • 1. No, the product is just a clone with no contribution.
  • 2. The product is a dapp with minimal interest and little contribution to the ecosystem.
  • 3. The product is a dapp, exchange or protocol addressing a real problem or need.
  • 4. Innovative product offering a solution to a high interest problem.
  • 5. Innovative protocol tackling critical problems of highest interest.
Product - Proof of concept:
Is the proof of concept comprehensive? Does it address a real problem or need?
4
  • 1. No, incoherent concept or no need for it.
  • 2. Difficult concept to understand, hardly any need or problem to solve.
  • 3. Clear concept which addresses a real problem.
  • 4. Clear, well thought concept which addresses a real problem of high interest.
  • 5. Exceptional proof of concept addressing a critical problem.
Product - MVP:
Has the concept been tested? Is there an MVP? How far is the launch?
2
  • 1. Untested concept.
  • 2. Initial tests, no MVP.
  • 3. MVP ready, Alpha launch.
  • 4. MVP ready, Beta launch.
  • 5. Fully working initial product.
Token Economics - Token utility:
Does the token have any utility? Is it a core function to the network?
5
  • 1. No, the token has no utility.
  • 2. Token has a limited, unclear utility.
  • 3. The token has some added, but not inherent value.
  • 4. The token is embedded in the network and has inherent value.
  • 5. The token has both inherent and added value and is embedded at the core of the network.
Token Economics - Network effect:
Are strong network effects built into the system? Are incentives aligned to encourage the growth of the network?
5
  • 1. No network effects built in.
  • 2. Minimal network effects, unclear incentives.
  • 3. Network effects and incentives present.
  • 4. Solid network effects with clear incentives due to inherent utility.
  • 5. Strong network effects, aligned incentives and high utility value.
Business Evaluation - Valuation:
Is the valuation reasonable ? Sufficient but not too high for the scope of the project?
3
  • 1. No, the valuation is ludicrous, the project could do with 1/10 of the sum.
  • 2. Valuation is higher than the project would need. Likely a money grab.
  • 3. Valuation is reasonable for the scope of the project.
  • 4. Valuation is modest for the caliber of the project.
  • 5. Valuation is impressively modest relative to the high caliber of the project.
Business Evaluation - Market potential:
What is the market potential? Does the project look like it could penetrate the market and conquer the world?
5
  • 1. No clear market potential.
  • 2. Limited market potential.
  • 3. Reasonable market and growth potential.
  • 4. Solid market and growth potential.
  • 5. Exceptional market and growth potential.
Business Evaluation - Competition:
Does the project have competition? How strong does it look relative to its competition?
3
  • 1. Awful position competing with many strong players.
  • 2. Weak position facing strong competition.
  • 3. Reasonable position facing strong competition.
  • 4. Solid position facing weak competition.
  • 5. Exceptional position, facing almost no competition.
Business Evaluation - Supply sold:
Does the team distribute a reasonable amount of the tokens so as to encourage create strong incentives and network effects?
5
  • 1. Negligible supply, greedy team.
  • 2. Small supply, poor incentives.
  • 3. Modest supply, weak incentives.
  • 4. Reasonable supply, responsible team.
  • 5. Large supply, solid inventive, committed team.
Business Evaluation - Vesting:
Does the team have a sufficient stake to have aligned incentives? Do they have a vesting schedule implemented?
?
  • 1. Large stake, no vesting.
  • 2. Small stakes, no vesting.
  • 3. Modest stakes, no vesting.
  • 4. Reasonable stakes, modest vesting.
  • 5. Solid stake, healthy vesting.
Hype and media presence:
Is the project present on social media and chats? Is there interest for it?
4
  • 1. No presence, negative image.
  • 2. Modest exposure and no interest.
  • 3. Reasonable exposure and modest interest.
  • 4. Solid exposure and high interest.
  • 5. Exceptional exposure, high interest and considerable hype.
Final Score
4.31

Team

Member
Vaughan Emery
Founder and CEO
David Fragale
Co-Founder and VP of Product
Mike Mackey
CTO and VP of Engineering
Dr. Luis Paris
Chief Data Scientist
Andrii Zamovsky
Strategic Development Partner

Advisors

Dr. John Clippinger
MIT Media Lab
Dr. Ulf Lindqvist
Senior Technical Director at SRI International
Dr. David Kravitz
Vice President, Crypto Systems Research at DarkMatter
Takashi Yanagi
Venture Partner
David Jevans
CEO, CipherTrace
Rob May
Co-Founder & CEO, Talla

Updates

Title
Published at