Beyond blockchain

[Short general description]: FANTOM is the world’s first DAG based Smart Contract platform that solves the scalability issues of existing public distributed ledger technology. The platform distinguishes itself from the traditional block ledger-based storage infrastructure by employing an improved version of existing DAG-based protocols.


[Main contribution proposal]: The FANTOM platform adopts a new protocol known as Lachesis Protocol to maintain consensus. Applications built on top of the FANTOM OPERA Chain enjoy instant transactions and near zero transaction costs for all users. 


[Main problems tackled]: Using a DAG, the Lachesis Protocol is responsible for saving transactions that are connected by a chain of events. Like a blockchain, the OPERA Chain is saved on each node that participates in the network. To validate transactions on each node, a node known as the witness node checks validity across all nodes. Unlike many other DAG based platforms, the Lachesis Protocol will not only secure and speed-up transactions above 300,000 TPS, but also provide an open-source and permissionless platform.


The Fantom platform is divided into three layers:

1) OPERA Core Layer -  It will create events and maintaining consensus across all nodes via the Lachesis Protocol

2) OPERA Ware Layer - It will provide the functionality for payments, issuing rewards, incentives, and Story data

3) OPERA Application Layer - It will provide publicly available Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for applications to use features of the OPERA Ware Layer



1) Story Root - Provides tracking of past transactions.

2) Smart Contract Language - The FANTOM Virtual Machine will allow executive smart contract byte code efficiency and across all operating systems.

3) Application - FANTOM will become the first platform to disrupt the existing infrastructure for payments and supply-chain management. dApps built on top of the FANTOM OPERA Chain will provide transparency and cost reductions for industries including, but not limited to, food technology, telecommunication, banking, electricity and real estate to autonomous vehicles using instant payments with near zero cost while maintaining hundreds of thousands of transactions per second.

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
5.00 / 5.00
4.00 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.50 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
3.00 / 5.00


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


Ahn Byung Ik
Bob Tucker
Issac Lee
Joseph Jang
Jake Choi
Hyun Woong Jae
Eco Architect
Lee Seoung Moon
Investment Director
Lee Jung Taek
Operation Director
Kim Gyu Min
Park Ye Weon


Steve Bellotti
CEO of Digital Currency Holdings
Matthew Hur
CEO of SL Blockchain Partners
Francisco Jo
General Partner of Blockwater Capital
Kim Hyeong Joo
President of Korea Blockchain Association
Jo Min Sik
Non-executive Director of Kakao
Ashton Hettiarachi
CEO of Blockchain Partners
Michael Kong
CTO of Digital Currency Holdings
Kim Hak Gyun
Ran Neu Ner
CNBC Cryptotrader Host


Published at
Why use FANTOM? Problems in real-life and how FANTOM can solve them
1 year ago
FANTOM Welcomes New Global Advisor, Ran Neu-Ner
1 year ago
No Need for Sherlock Holmes Anymore
1 year ago
FANTOM Crowdsale Whitelist FAQ
1 year ago
FANTOM Crowdsale FAQ
1 year ago
How to Whitelist for FANTOM— A Step-By-Step Guide
1 year ago
FANTOM’s own Elon Musk
1 year ago
FANTOM Whitelisting Lottery Overview
1 year ago
Crowdsale Code Audit Reports
1 year ago
Fantom Crowdsale Participation Guide
1 year ago
How Block Times Prevent Widespread Adoption
1 year ago
How to check your whitelisted address on the Crowdsale contract
1 year ago