Introduction
Aavegotchi stands at the nexus of several critical crypto trends, merging decentralized finance (DeFi), blockchain gaming, staking, and digital land ownership. As a play-2-earn crypto collectible game, Aavegotchi is situated on the Ethereum and Polygon networks, offering participants an immersive experience centered around the Aavegotchi avatars, represented as unique NFTs.
Innovation
While Aavegotchi mirrors several play-2-earn models that previously inundated the market and even stressed the Ethereum network to capacity, its confluence of features places it in a niche category. Specifically, its integration with Aave and its multifaceted utilization of its GHST token adds depth to its ecosystem.
Architecture
The architecture of Aavegotchi seamlessly weaves together gaming and DeFi components, resulting in a sophisticated yet user-friendly ecosystem. Their layered approach, encompassing character traits, wearables, staking, and kinship scores, offers users a diverse range of engagement pathways while simultaneously upholding the integrity of a cohesive environment.
Code Quality
Although Aavegotchi’s open-source codebase reflects the expertise of its seasoned developers, it needs more documentation. The coding style adheres to high standards, but a noticeable lack of comments detracts from its clarity. With regular commits observed across leading repositories, it is hopeful that future updates will prioritize and enhance code comprehensibility.
Product Roadmap
A highlight of Aavegotchi’s strategic vision is its commitment to decentralized governance. Adopting a phased approach, the AavegotchiDAO underscores the project’s intent to progressively and thoroughly migrate towards complete decentralization, evidencing its adaptability and forward-thinking mindset.
Usability
Deployed on two prominent blockchains, Ethereum and Polygon, Aavegotchi ensures broad accessibility and scalability. Users are presented with a user-friendly interface that facilitates frictionless interaction with the platform, enhancing the overall user experience.
Aavegotchi Team
The expertise of the Aavegotchi team is undeniable, with a roster boasting significant experience in the crypto domain. Their dedication to the project is evident through consistent developments and updates, even if areas like code commentary demand further attention.
Conclusion
In the expansive world of blockchain gaming and DeFi, Aavegotchi carves out a distinctive space. While it borrows elements from existing models, integrating various crypto trends into a unified platform sets it apart. Nevertheless, addressing aspects like code documentation remains crucial for its longevity and further enhancement. Overall, Aavegotchi presents a promising blend of entertainment and financial functionality in the burgeoning crypto sphere.
| Initial Screening | |||
| Keep researching | |||
| Does this project need to use blockchain technology? | Yes | ||
| Can this project be realized? | Yes | ||
| Is there a viable use case for this project? | Yes | ||
| Is the project protected from commonly known attacks? | Yes | ||
| Are there no careless errors in the whitepaper? | Yes | ||
| Project Technology Score | |||
| Description | Scorecard | ||
| Innovation (Out Of 11) | 7 | ||
| How have similar projects performed? | Good | 2 | |
| Are there too many innovations? | Regular | 2 | |
| Percentage of crypto users that will use the project? | 1%-5% | 1 | |
| Is the project unique? | Yes | 2 | |
| Architecture (Out of 12) | 11 | ||
| Overall feeling after reading whitepaper? | Good | 2 | |
| Resistance to possible attacks? | Good | 2 | |
| Complexity of the architecture? | Easy | 2 | |
| Time taken to understand the architecture? | 20-50 min | 1 | |
| Overall feeling about the architecture after deeper research? | Good | 4 | |
| Has the project been hacked ? | No | 0 | |
| Code Quality (out of 15) | 12 | ||
| Is the project open source? | Yes | 2 | |
| Does the project use good code like C,C++, Rust, Erlang, Ruby, etc? | Yes | 2 | |
| Could the project use better programming languages? | No | 0 | |
| Github number of lines? | More than 10K | 1 | |
| Github commits per month? | More than 10 | 2 | |
| What is the quality of the code? | Medium | 1 | |
| How well is the code commented? | Bad | 0 | |
| Overall quality of the test coverage? | Outstanding | 2 | |
| Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Outstanding | 2 | |
| When Mainnet (out of 5) | 5 | ||
| When does the mainnet come out? | Mainnet Ready | 5 | |
| Usability for Infrastructure Projects (out of 5) | 5 | ||
| Is it easy to use for the end customer? | Yes | 5 | |
| Team (out of 7) | 6 | ||
| Number of active developers? | 5+ | 2 | |
| Developers average Git Background? | Senior+ | 2 | |
| Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 46 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 12.73% | ||
| Architecture | 20.00% | ||
| Code Quality | 21.82% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 10.91% | ||
| Total | 83.64% |
