Elrond Network

A highly scalable public blockchain via adaptive state sharding and secure proof of stake

Disclaimer: The founding team of ICO Market Data has direct involvement in Elrond Network.

 

[Short general description]: Elrond is a novel architecture which goes beyond state-of-the-art by introducing a genuine State Sharding scheme for practical scalability, eliminating energy and computa-tional waste while ensuring distributed fairness through a Secure Proof of Stake (SPoS) consensus mechanism. Having a strong focus on security, Elrrond’s network is built to ensure resistance to known security problems like Sybil attack, Rogue-key attack, Nothing at Stake attack and others. In an ecosystem that strives for interconnectivity, Elrond’s solution for smart contracts offers an EVM com-pliant engine to ensure interoperability by design.

 

[Main contribution proposal]:

A) Adaptive State Sharding - Elrond proposes a dynamically adaptive sharding mechanism that ena-bles shard computation and reorganizing based on necessity and the number of active network nodes. The reassignment of nodes in the shards at the beginning of each epoch is progressive and nondeter-ministic, inducing no temporary liveness penalties. Adaptive state sharding comes with additional chal-lenges compared to the static model. One of the key-points resides in how shard-splitting and shard-merging is done to prevent overall latency penalties.

Elrond solves this challenge by: 

1) Dividing the wallet address space in shards, using a binary tree which can be built with the sole requirement of knowing the exact number of shards in a certain epoch. 

2) Introducing a technique of balancing the nodes in each shard, to achieve overall architecture equilibrium. This technique ensures a balanced workload and reward for each node in the network.

3) Designing a built-in mechanism for automatic transaction routing in the corresponding shards, considerably reduces latency as a result.

4) In order to achieve considerable improvements with respect to bootstrapping and storage, Elrond makes use of a shard pruning mechanism. This ensures sustainability of our architecture even with a throughput of tens of thousands of transactions per second (TPS).

 

B) Secure Proof of Stake  - As an improved variation of Proof of Stake (PoS) that ensures long term security and distributed fairness, while eliminating the need for energy intensive PoW algorithms. Elrond introduces an improvement which reduces the latency allowing each node in the shard to deter-mine the members of the consensus group (block proposer and validators) at the beginning of a round. This is possible because the last block's aggregated signature is used as the randomization factor. In addition to the stake factor generally used in PoS architectures as a sole decision input, Elrond refines its consensus mechanism by adding an additional weight factor called rating. 

 

[Main problems tackled]: 

1) Full descentralization - Eliminating the need for any trusted third party, hence removing any single point of failure

2) Robust security - Allowing secure transactions and preventing any attacks based on known attack vectors;

3) High scalability  - Enabling the network to achieve a performance at least equal to the centralized counterpart, as measured in TPS;  Initial tests show 5000tps at 4MB/s average bandwidth with 16 shards. Linearly, Elrond has reached 10000tps at 8BM/s with 16shards and 50000 tps at 8MB/s average bandwidth 64shards. 

4) Efficiency - Performing all network services with minimal energy and computational requirements;

5) Bootstrapping and storage enhancement - Ensuring a competitive cost for data storage and boot-strapping;

6) Cross-chain interoperability - Enforced by design, permitting unlimited communication between external services.

 

[Innovation]:

1) Security through multi signing - This scaling technique can be used in blockchains to partition states and transaction processing, so that each node would process only a fraction of all transactions in parallel with other nodes. As long as there is a sufficient number of nodes verifying each transaction so that the system maintains high reliability and security, then splitting a blockchain into shards will allow it to process many transactions in parallel, and thus greatly improving transaction throughput and efficiency. Sharding promises to increase the throughput as the mining network expands, a property that is referred to as horizontal scaling

2) Randomness source - Each node from the list E can be selected as part of j an optimally dimensioned consensus group, by a deterministic function, based on last block’s aggregated signature, the round r and a set of variation parameters. The random number, known to all shard nodes through gos-sip, cannot be predicted before the block is actually signed by the previous consensus group. This property makes it a good source of randomness and prevents highly adaptive malicious attacks. We define a selection function to return the set of chosen nodes 

3) Performance - Sharding approach shows a linearly increasing throughput. 

4) Shard storage pruning - To reduce storage requirements and bootstrapping time. 

Analysis

Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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?
?
  • 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
?

Team

Member
Beniamin Mincu
CEO
Lucian Todea
COO
Lucian Mincu
CIO
Felix Crisan
Head of Research
Sebastian Marian
Core Developer
Mihai Dorian Stancu
Core Developer
Iulian Pascalau
Core Developer
Corcoveanu Cristian
Core Developer
Adrian Dobrita
Head of Engineering
Radu Chis
Head of Technology
Dan Voicu
Head of Communication
Larisa Oltean
UI / UX

Advisors

Alex Iskold
Managing Director at Techstars NYC
Patrick Storchenegger
Attorney at law and notary public / Member of Ethereum Foundation
Andrei Pitis
VP of Engineering and Head of Bucharest Office at Fitbit / CEO at Vector Watch
Fabio Cesar Canesin
Co-founder of City of Zion / Co-founder of NEX
Ethan Fast
Co-Founder of City of Zion and NEX / Creator of Neon Wallet
Alex Tabarrok
Professor of economics at George Mason University / Co-founder of Marginal Revolution University
Raul Jordan
Ethereum core developer / Co-Leading Prysmatic Labs / Thiel Fellow

Updates

Title
Published at
Hello World, Elrond is here!
6 months ago
Elrond’s Advisers — Another Step Forward
6 months ago
Elrond Network — Progress update #1
5 months ago
Elrond’s Advisers — Scaling up
5 months ago
Elrond Prototype — Progress update #2
5 months ago
We’re Not Doing a Big ICO
4 months ago
Elrond — Community update
2 months ago