NKN

Cellular Automata powered blockchain

[Short general description]: NKN (New Kind of Network) is a new generation of highly scalable, self-evolving and self-incentivized blockchain network infrastructure. NKN addresses the network decentralization and self-evolution by introducing Cellular Automata (CA) methodology for both dynamism and efficiency. NKN tokenizes network connectivity and data transmission capacity by a novel and useful Proof of Work. 

 

[Main contribution proposal]: NKN intends to revolutionize the entire network technology and business. NKN wants to be the Uber or Airbnb of the trillion-dollar communication service business, but without a central entity. NKN aspires to free the bits, and build the Internet we always wanted. NKN is the next generation of peer to peer network infrastructure built upon blockchain technology backed by Cellular Automata theory aiming at revolutionizing the Internet with true decentralization and native token incentive mechanism. NKN solves the “efficiency” problem of blockchain by equalizing all nodes in the network. Each node follows a rule of Cellular Automaton and updates its state based on local rules.

 

[Main problems tackled]:

1) Resource Utilization - A fully decentralized and anonymous peer-to-peer system offers huge potential in terms of improved efficiency, sustainability and safety for industry and society.

2) Net Neutrality & Fragmentation - Without a proper incentivizing engagement scheme, it is almost impossible to maintain a constant and secured information propagation channel.

3) Promote network sharing

4) Secure net neutrality from network layer innovations

5) Perform efficient and dynamic routing

6)  Always keep network open and scalable

7) Tokenize network connectivity and data transmission assets and incentivize participating nodes

8) Design and build the next generation of blockchain network

 

[Innovation]:

1) A Useful Proof of Work - NKN proposes an alternative to the current PoW by providing a more decentralized, dynamically evolving, self-organizing and self-evolving network infrastructure and designing a whole new set of consensus mechanisms. The novel PoW does not result in a waste of resources. Instead, it is a peer-to-peer sharing mechanism at blockchain level. Participants receive rewards by contributing more network resources than they consume. NKN uses Proof of Relay mechanism to guarantee network connectivity and data transmission capacity

2) Network Topology and Routing - Cellular Automata on Networks (CAoN) is a natural extension of Cellular Automata that is able to model networks with non-geometric neighbor connections. It is powerful when modeling networks whose topology is evolving based on local rules. As the goal is to build a decentralized blockchain system with dynamic topology, CAoN is a natural model for the system. 

3) Cellular automata powered consensus - Peers must evaluate information and make agreement on their actions for blockchain to work properly, NKN is designed to be a futuristic blockchain infrastructure that requires low latency, high bandwidth, extremely high scalability and low cost to reach consensus.

4)  Proof of Relay - Consensus in NKN is driven by Proof of Relay (PoR), a useful Proof of Work (PoW) where the expected rewards a node gets depend on its network connectivity and data transmission power. Node proves its relay workload by adding digital signature when forwarding data, which is then accepted by the system through consensus algorithm. PoR is not a waste of resources since the work performed in PoR benefits the whole network by providing more transmission power. 

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
4.50 / 5.00
Product
4.00 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.50 / 5.00
Business Evaluation
4.60 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
4.00 / 5.00

Analysis

Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
2
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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
4.42

Team

Member
Yanbo Li
Founder | Core Developer
Bruce Z. Li
Co-Founder | Strategy & Innovation
Justin Wang
Co-Founder | Core Researcher
Yilun Zhang
Co-Founder | Core Researcher & Developer
Allen Dixon
Business Development & Compliance
Arron Jow
Core Developer
Oscar C.
Core Developer
Mouxin Mo
Core Developer
King K.
Core Developer
Zhiguo Hong
Community Core Developer
Chenxing Li
Community Core Researcher & Developer
Annie Liu
Community Researcher & Developer

Advisors

Whitfield Diffie
Inventor of public key cryptography (Diffie-Hellman), 2015 Turing Award winner

Updates

Title
Published at