Monet

Open-source infrastructure for distributed mobile peer-to-peer applications

[Short general description]: Monet is an open network architecture, materialized by a set of software tools and protocols. It brings decentralization and scalable blockchains to mobile devices. Based on the consensus system Babble, Monet ad hoc blockchains can process thousands of transactions per second with near instant finality.

 

[Main contribution proposal]: Monet believes that a system for serverless mobile applications is needed whereby people can interact directly with one another without reverting entirely to a third party or an extended set of participants. 

This involves three fundamental operations:

1) Distributed Consensus: reaching agreement among a group of peers, connected by an unreliable communications network, without reverting to a third party.

2) Interoperability: enabling information exchange across consensus networks, online or offline.

3) Peer-discovery: finding other peers to connect with, based on location and activity.

They are building a free and open-source Software Development Kit (SDK) which enables developers to add blockchain consensus to their applications. It introduces a new paradigm whereby users dynamically join or form local blockchains for the duration of their interaction and eliminate the need for servers.

The SDK implements the Babble consensus system which is particularly suited for mobile deployments due to its low messaging complexity (https://github.com/mosaicnetworks/babble).

Validators are rewarded for operating nodes and securing the Hub by earning transaction fees in Tenom, the Hub’s native token, which also serves as the backing asset for the Proof-of-Stake protocol built atop the underlying Babble blockchain.

One of Monet’s distinctive traits is the ability to operate nodes on off-the-shelf mobile devices.

In Monet, mobile ad hoc blockchains are formed by small, localised, groups involved in a common activity. Participants are directly connected but do not necessarily trust each other and are most likely using mobile devices.

Babble is based on an asynchronous Full Information Protocol (FIP) which is fitting for this scenario. It is a leaderless, asynchronous, Byzantine fault tolerant system, capable of processing thousands of transactions per second with sub-second latencies.

Hence, like all FIPs, the core of Babble involves three operations:

1. Gossiping and constructing the Communication Graph.

2. Determining which Events will eventually be common knowledge.

3. Sorting the Events with a deterministic function.

To facilitate interoperability, Monet added an extra step which consists in projecting the output of the ordering function onto a blockchain. Transactions are mapped against a linear data structure composed of blocks; each block containing an ordered list of transactions, a hash of the previous block, a hash of the resulting application state, a hash of the validator set, and a collection of signatures from the set of validators. This method enables DAG-based systems to implement any Inter-Blockchain Communication protocol and integrate with an Internet of Blockchains

 

[Main problems tackled]: Inter-Blockchain Communication - at least two challenges:

- Input/Output operations - communication between a state-machine and the outside world - are non-deterministic and could undermine consensus.

- Data integrity - verifying that the item of communication went through consensus on the originating chain - needs to be preserved.

Inter-Blockchain communication is about verifying on one chain that a transaction happened on another chain. In permissioned algorithms, like Babble, the verification process involves counting signatures. Validators sign block hashes, which are themselves obtained by recursively hashing together, in a simple Merkle tree, the various components of a block, which include: the state-hash, the validators-hash, the transactions-hash, and the previous-block-hash. Cryptographic hash functions are such that tampering with any of these intermediary hashes yields a completely different block hash.

 

[Innovation]: The Monet Hub is an always on master blockchain that provides infrastructure services for the first applications on the network. It is composed of multiple independent nodes operated by a group of validators engaged in a Proof of Stake consensus mechanism. Each node runs an instance of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) coupled with Babble, where Smart Contracts can be deployed to provide services such as peer-discovery, ID directories, financial ledgers, light-clients for other blockchains, and much more. Each validator also operates STUN and TURN servers to facilitate NAT traversal.

On the Hub, Babble is augmented with a Proof-of-Stake algorithm which incentivizes validators to behave correctly. Babble voting power is denominated in Tenom and validators are forced to “bond” their currency holdings in a security deposit that can be destroyed if they are found to misbehave in the consensus protocol. This adds an economic element to the security of the protocol, and quantifies the cost of violating the assumption that less than one-third of voting power is Byzantine.

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
Martin Arrivets
Co-founder and CEO of Mosaic Networks
Giacomo Puri Purini
Co-founder and CFO of Mosaic Networks
Kevin Jones
Software Developer at Mosaic Networks

Advisors

Mark Stuart Day
Distributed Systems Expert, Author, Teacher
Mauro Martino
Head of Visual AI Lab at IBM Research AI
Ronan Lynch
Co-founder of Haskoin
Abdi Hersi
Founder of Vidette

Updates

Title
Published at
From Hashgraph to Blockchain
7 months ago
Introducing Monet
5 months ago
From Peanuts to Hashgraph
5 months ago
MONET Ecosystem: Architecture for Ad Hoc Mobile Blockchains
4 months ago
Introducing Chatr: Demo Application Built with Babble Consensus
4 months ago
Introducing TENOM: native token in the MONET ecosystem
3 months ago
Babble Consensus
3 months ago
Announcing MONET Bounty Campaign
2 months ago