Seele

Empowered by an up-scalable neural consensus protocol

[Short general description]: Seele is powered by an up-scalable Neural Consensus protocol for high throughput concurrency among large scale heterogeneous nodes and is able to form a unique heterogeneous forest multi-chain ecosystem.

 

[Main problems tackled]: Some of the main problem addressed by the project are: inability to scale for large scale performance, the inability

to support diverse business scenarios and the inability to exchange information and share assets across different blockchain networks are becoming more prominent.

 

[Main contribution proposal]: In response to these problems, we try to make progress in different aspects of the blockchain, such as the core issues of the blockchain, underlying communication protocols, network infrastructure, cross-chain agreements, consensus algorithms and the upper application ecosystem, and strive to promote the development of the blockchain and value added Internet widely used.

 

Here are the main improvements proposed by the Seele protocol:

 

A novel neural consensus algorithm is proposed to improve the fault tolerance from 33% to 40% without any loss of performance compared with the Byzantine Agreement(BA) algorithm;

 

Proposed Heterogeneous Forest(HF)Network architecture with good scalability for a wide variety of application scenarios, as well as perfect mechanisms resource and security isolation for any generic or customizable demand;

 

Proposed Value Transport Protocol (VTP) and Value HTTP (VHTTP Protocol) to realize the naming, discovery and addressing service of Value Internet assets and entities, and seamlessly integrate and integrate with the Internet resources to build underlying protocols and infrastructure services for blockchain ecosystem;

 

Proposed TCP/UDP-based low-latency Quick Value Internet Connection(QVIC) protocol that can better adapt to and meet the requirements of blockchain network than traditional Internet TCP and UDP protocols used in current blockchain networks. 

 

There are several obvious advantages in handling more connections, security, and low latency, especially in the transmission of packets of a specific block size (1M, 2M). Compared with UDP, the transmission efficiency is improved nearly 1 order of magnitude.

 

Evidently, Seele’s proposal is outstanding and impressive. Such conclusions do not come easily and are the result of strong research scientists which are well supported from a developer standing point. After further evaluation we can conclude that the team is first-rate thanks to their extensive experience and relevant PhD experience. In terms of partnerships they include: IBM, Oxford, UCLA. A test network is scheduled for 2018 Q2 and main for Q4. 

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
4.00 / 5.00
Product
4.33 / 5.00
Token Economics
5.00 / 5.00
Business Evaluation
4.40 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
5.00 / 5.00

Analysis

Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
4
  • 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?
3
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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
4.46

Team

Member
Dr. Wei Bi
Chief scientist
Dr. Gong Hui
Digital currency expert
Dr. Maolin Zheng
Dean of the RBI
Dr. Nick Smith
Data Analyst
Dr. Stephen Gruppetta
Data scientist
Liu Wensi
Big data platform architect
Zheng Junjie
Blockchain platform architect
Hong Zhixiong
Blockchain application expert
Qiao Zhigang
Network and distributed system expert
Zhou Leihao
Big data platform architect
Ma Yougxing
Contract platform architect
Qiu Bo
Senior engineer of blockchain

Advisors

Prof. Donald Lawrence
Professor, Blockchain Institute, UCL
Prof. John Fox
MLB clinical decision-making system

Updates

Title
Published at
Science and Technology never stop
8 months ago
Destruction and universality,Seele.the value network of blockchain 4.0!
8 months ago
Cooperative Journey of Seele in Davos
8 months ago
Hot discussion of Blockchain Technology during Davos Seele has collected world-wide attention
8 months ago
seele‘s statement
8 months ago
WARNING!!Two scammers information, please pay attention.
8 months ago
Emergency Response Plans for Impersonating Seele Community Administrators to defraud Ethereum
8 months ago
Letter of Apology from Community Management Team
8 months ago
Seele weekly report 20180209
8 months ago
Answers to the community concerns
7 months ago
⚠️⚠️⚠️WARNING:BEWARE OF SCAMMER⚠️⚠️⚠️
7 months ago
The first day in Gibraltar
7 months ago
Day 2 of Dr. Wei Bi, chief scientist of Seele, in Gibraltar
7 months ago
Day 3 of Dr. Wei Bi, chief scientist of Seele, in Gibraltar
7 months ago
Seele experienced a lot in this February.
7 months ago
After the Most Demanding Whitelist Registration Process, Seele Officially Enters Rigorous Reviewing & Grading Mode
7 months ago
Seele Monthly Report: February, 2018
7 months ago
Official Website Announcement
6 months ago
SEELE TOKEN SALE UPDATES AND INSTRUCTIONS
6 months ago