A universal blockchain protocol enabling cross-ledger access through business modularization

[Short general description]: OneLedger is a cross-ledger agnostic protocol that enables high-performance scaling using a sharded and modified practical Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus scheme -- which allows for either a permissionless or permissioned setting. By coupling public key infrastructure (PKI) with identity management, nodes (and node operators) will have a defined trust hierarchy that allows them to participate in the consensus of the OneLedger chain or any side-chain.


[Main problems tackled]:

OneLedger’s mission is to simplify businesses’ adoption of blockchain technology and its integration into their specific business applications and products. Through OneLedger, both businesses and individuals can leverage the platform to create both public and private blockchains with their own uniquely-identified network consensus. With the use of role control, enterprises can also separate read and write access on their permissioned network. By leveraging the platform’s provided blockchain-based business tools, modern-day companies can efficiently and effectively adapt their business models to OneLedger blockchain technology. 


[Main contribution proposal]:

1)Smart Identity Management Platform - Managing an identity, pseudonymous or otherwise, across multiple distributed networks can be done by assigning a master private / public key-pair to an identity. This master key-pair can then be used to associate any other public keys to this identity by digitally signing a message with the private key of the master key-pair. OneLedger offers a universal identity solution to keep track of users’ assets that are stored on multiple distributed databases.

2) Blockchain Services - Anyone can launch a side-chain to run on the OneLedger consensus protocol. This side-chain can be permissioned or permissionless. In the case of permissioned, a user can use OneLedger’s Smart Identity Management System and search for identities with a particular trust rating and who provide infrastructure services, i.e. node operators that may store or validate distributed ledgers, and assign particular identities to various roles in order to maintain the side-chain. 

3) Chaincode Service - Businesses or individuals may wish to deploy dAPPs on multiple platforms. As such, developers have to write and deploy smart contracts on each platform of choice, potentially in multiple languages

4) Programming Interface  - The primary client-side interface is a REST API allowing applications to register users, query the blockchain, and issue transactions. A set of APIS are made available for chain code to directly interact with the stack to execute transactions and query transaction results

5) Extendable Interface - Extendable interface that is fast, safe, extendable and agnostic, allowing for easy deployment of decentralized applications (DApps) and cross-ledger communication.



OneLedger Architecture - This decentralized framework changes the basis upon how applications are built by ultimately unifying and realizing the real world into its blockchain parallel. All this will be achieved through: 

1) OneLedger Business Center - tools within the business portal, enabling users with any level of blockchain experience to map their business module onto the blockchain, generate chain-code through developer-defined modules, and tag the process throughout the flow.

2) OneLedger Consensus Protocol - Business Logic will use a configurable role-based consensus methodology leveraging hierarchical grouping similar to the Merkle Tree. The role will be determined by business participants. Each role is linked to an independent node that participates in consensus; business logic will then determine how each role is fed into node data. The role consensus is subject to second level verification. Through their defined key and digital signature, Users can be correctly linked to their role in the business. This enables transparency and traceability, allowing identification of the user who had written data onto the Blockchain, and their respective role.

3) OneLedger Public Chain Consensus - OneLedger Sidechain Consensus helps initiate transfers between public chains. When a transfer between public chains is requested, the pre-consensus step is conducted in the OneLedger Sidechain, and a pre-consensus block (the N9 block in the previous diagram) will drive a proposal to the public chain. 

4) Sidechain Consensus Algorithm - The Sidechain Consensus algorithm consists of two phases. The first phase is a “Round Based PreConsensus” to get a Consensus Proposal that more than 2/3 of the node in the scope has agreed with.  In the second phase, the Pre-Consensus block will drive to the public chain if the proposal is a cross public chain. In this case, each node will validate that exactly one committed Pre-Consensus Proposal is signed by more than 2/3 of the nodes in the scope. Once validated, the block is broadcasted and the previous block is finalized.

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
5.00 / 5.00
3.67 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.50 / 5.00
Business Evaluation
4.20 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
4.00 / 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


David Cao
Founder & CEO
Alex Todd
Stephen (Yang) Li
Lead Engineer
Edwin (Yuduo) Zhang
Managing Director
Othalia Doe-Bruce
Public Relations Officer
Alex (Jie) Lan
Lester Li
Paul W. Homer
Senior Blockchain Engineer


Trevor Koverko
CEO at Polymath
Matthew Niemerg
Distributed Ledger Technology and Security Advisor
Jor Law
Founder at Verify Investor & Homeier Law PC
Sam Onat Yilmaz
Marketing Advisor
Gavin Knight
Strategy Advisor, Factom Foundation Advisor
Mervyn Chng
ICO Advisor, Managing Partner at Gwei Capital Ltd
Reuben Loo
APAC Advisor, Partner at MW Partners


Published at
OneLedger: A Blockchain of Blockchains
1 year ago
Introduction to OneLedger Team
1 year ago
Meet the people behind OneLedger
1 year ago
Interview with Jor Law, Advisor of OneLedger
1 year ago
Comparing OneLedger to Cosmos, AION and OverLedger
1 year ago
OneLedger, Hackathons and Hackers
1 year ago
Welcoming Paul Homer, to OneLedger as Senior Blockchain Engineer
1 year ago
Meet Trevor Koverko, CEO & Co-Founder of Polymath, and Advisor to OneLedger.
1 year ago
OneLedger at the CryptoChicks Hackathon + Conference
1 year ago
OneLedger at Harvard Blockchain & Social Impact Expo and Mold HCSSA Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Summit
1 year ago
Announcing KYC Registration and the OneLedger Ambassador program
1 year ago
OneLedger Token Metrics Update
1 year ago
OneLedger KYC Instructions
1 year ago
OneLedger First Meetup Event: Blockchain Night
1 year ago
OneLedger Important KYC Announcement
1 year ago
OneLedger KYC Instructions
1 year ago
KYC Retrospective
1 year ago
OneLedger: Start a International Conversation
1 year ago
OneLedger Ambassador Program Instructions
1 year ago
Get to Know OneLedger in 3 Minutes
1 year ago
How to release tokens from a vesting contract
1 year ago
OneLedger Public Sale Contribution Step-by-step Instructions
1 year ago