Nervos

The trustware platform for the 7.6 billion people

[Short general description]: Nervos is a decentralized application platform with a layered architecture. Nervos is a suite of scalable and interoperable protocols and an open blockchain "Trustware" platform for decentralized applications. Trustware is a new decentralized computing paradigm that goes beyond distributed ledgers and smart contracts, to bring general expression of trust to meet the demand of today's real world applications.

 

[Main contribution proposal]: Nervos designed a radically decoupled decentralized platform to allow multiple paths of scalability, transaction certainty and low local latency. This brings suHyperior user experience to mobile and web DApps. Nervos comes with built-in identity support with flexible trust models for DApps to build real world trust based transactions.

 

[Main problems tackled]: Nervos provides a standardized client interface with a small set of state transition semantics. Existing systems don't have to change their programming language, move their business rules, or break their engineering best practices to integrate with a world class public blockchain. 

Nervos CKB (Common Knowledge Base) consists of three types of nodes:

1) Archive nodes - full nodes. 

2) Consensus nodes - listen to new transactions, package them to blocks, and achieve consensus on new blocks. 

3) Light clients - users interact with the CKB network with Light Clients. They store only very limited data, and can run on desktop computers or mobile devices. 

 

[Innovation]:

1) New dApp Paradigm - The foundational layer provided by Nervos is completely decoupled from the dApp on which it runs. Five basic components comprise the system: cell; type; validator; generator; identity. The architecture of the system provides for the deconstruction and organization of the three components of all dApps- computation, storage and identity. CKB supports general-purpose computation and storage, provides for scalability and is designed to be mobile friendly. Through this design, Nervos will provide an all-purpose, interoperable solution for data, computation and identity services for any dApp that harnesses the layer

2) Hybrid consensus - Traditional BFT algorithms function well in normal situations with simple logic, but they need complicated logic to deal with fault conditions; Nervos will combine Nakamoto consensus and traditional BFT in a secure way. 

3) Governance - CKB has built-in mechanisms for liquid voting and hot deployment, making the system a self evolving network.

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

Advisors

Updates

Title
Published at