Open consensus for 10B people

[Short general description]: Harmony builds an open marketplace at Google-scale for the decentralized economy. This project aims to provide a consensus protocol over the open Internet at 10 million transactions per second with 100-millisecond latency and at most 0.1% fee.


[Main contribution proposal]: Harmony aims to build the decentralized economy with 10x innovations in all components: transport network (Google’s UDP, Bloom tables, 5G mobile), consensus protocol (Byzantine committees, acyclic graphs, monopolist fees), and system tooling (unikernels, multi-core in Rust, zero-copy streaming). Harmony’s approach is to productionize research innovations to the scale that serves billions of people and devices.


[Main problems tackled]: 

Optimization - After extensive research, Harmony concluded that OmniLedger is the most scalable permissionless protocol. Therefore OmniLedger is the basis of Harmony’s protocol. Principles of scaling include: 

1) Representative sharding -O(1)-size multi-signatures for 10k nodes vs 16-node PBFT. Crypto sortition via randomness from multi-party computation and commit-then-reveal step.

2) Gradual transition - Sybil-resistant identities to maintain liveness when swapping shards. A sliding window from a fixed permutation to ensure ⅔ honest majority

3) Atomic shard-commit -Each shard uses O(log n) multicast tree-based BFT to unanimously accept cross-shard transactions with O(1)-size coordination

4) Parallelising blocks - Acyclic graphs to capture transaction dependencies transitively. Divide each shard into groups to replace faulty nodes with a view-change.

5) Pruning checkpoints - State blocks for storage and bootstrapping against Byzantine DoS. Multi-hop, collectively signed back pointers, 100x space savings.

6) Optimistic confirms - Trust but verify low-value transactions with shard deposits. Guarantee finality in ~1s with penalty linear to loss and detection in minutes.



1) Locations and AI - With tight integration of locations, Harmony will be well-suited to support applications for smart cities. For example, autonomous vehicles can fetch verified location data in upcoming trips. Or, imagine thousands of swarm robots, self-organizing around a common mission in an unknown terrain. Maps for geocoding and points of interest can be a showcase for decentralized applications in the real world.

Harmony will also serve as a high-volume data marketplace and optimize its machine learning performance. We follow Blockchain-based Machine Learning Marketplaces to build a new decentralized economy based on data.

2) Contracts and beyond - Harmony has designed a new programming language, Min (see min-lang.com), and built a prototype compiler to demonstrate its ease and the security. Min, a Harmony subproject, is a new language for programming software with security guarantees, leading to unhackable systems. In short, we devise static types with concise syntax as security specification, analyze decentralized protocols in formal models, and generate optimized code across networks.

Sharding contracts by - a) Define a useful subset of limited scripting b) Expose transaction dependencies during sharding, c) Annotate computational contracts with stateless verifiers.


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





Published at