Introduction
Kaspa is a revolutionary blockchain platform that stands out for its speed, scalability, and open-source nature. It introduces innovative features and subprotocols that enhance functionality and pave the way for future L-2 solutions. This professional objective review will evaluate Kaspa based on its innovation, architecture, code quality, product roadmap, usability, and team.
Innovation (16.36%)
Kaspa’s key innovation lies in implementing the blockDAG, a digital ledger that enables parallel blocks and instant transaction confirmation, which solves the limitations associated with linear blockchains and Nakamoto consensus. The utilization of the GHOSTDAG protocol allows for efficient parallel processing and eliminates the issues of block orphaning. Kaspa’s goal of substantially increasing the number of blocks per second will attract the development of smart contracts and DeFi.
Architecture (16.36%)
Kaspa’s architecture is designed to achieve exceptional speed, scalability, and security. It maintains the security principles and methodology of Bitcoin while modifying its proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm. Implementing kHeavyHash, a variant of SHA-256 with a weighting function, ensures the blockDAG is secured by a robust network of decentralized miners. Kaspa‘s pruning mechanism reduces the size of the blockDAG, allowing for the creation of numerous nodes without imposing significant storage requirements.
Code Quality (27.27%)
Kaspa’s code quality is excellent. It is an open-source project that employs good programming languages such as C, C++, Rust, Erlang, Ruby, etc. The codebase has more than 10,000 lines and receives frequent commits. The code is well-commented and exhibits outstanding test coverage and maintainability. The overall quality of the code is commendable.
Product Roadmap (9.09%)
Kaspa’s mainnet is already ready, indicating the project has significant progress. The team’s ongoing rust language rewrite demonstrates its commitment to improving performance and scalability. Kaspa plans to introduce rollups and Layer 2 solutions, which will further enhance the platform’s capabilities.
Usability (9.09%)
Kaspa offers user-friendly wallets that facilitate seamless transactions and secure storage of cryptocurrencies. The Kaspa Web Wallet is hailed as the most user-friendly and secure wallet available, while the KDX desktop wallet simplifies installation and configuration. The command line wallet provides a versatile option for advanced users. Kaspa aims to make its platform easy to use for end customers.
Team (9.09%)
Kaspa has a team of active developers with a strong Git background. The developers exhibit outstanding coding styles, indicating their expertise and professionalism. The team’s commitment to maintaining the project is commendable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Kaspa is a highly innovative blockchain platform with exceptional speed, scalability, and security. Its blockDAG architecture solves the limitations of linear blockchains and Nakamoto consensus. The code quality is excellent, and a dedicated team of developers backs the project. With a user-friendly approach and a roadmap for further improvements, Kaspa has great potential in the crypto space. Based on the evaluation, Kaspa receives an impressive total score of 87.27%.
| 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) | 9 | ||
| How have similar projects performed? | Medium | 1 | |
| Are there too many innovations? | Medium | 1 | |
| Percentage of crypto users that will use the project? | Over 11% | 5 | |
| Is the project unique? | Yes | 2 | |
| Architecture (Out of 12) | 9 | ||
| Overall feeling after reading whitepaper? | Good | 2 | |
| Resistance to possible attacks? | Good | 2 | |
| Complexity of the architecture? | Not too Complex | 2 | |
| Time taken to understand the architecture? | 20-50 min | 1 | |
| Overall feeling about the architecture after deeper research? | Medium | 2 | |
| Has the project been hacked? | No | 0 | |
| Code Quality (out of 15) | 15 | ||
| 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? | Good | 2 | |
| How well is the code commented? | Outstanding | 2 | |
| 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? | 3+ | 1 | |
| Developers average Git Background? | Intermediate | 1 | |
| Developers coding style? | Outstanding | 3 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 48 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 16.36% | ||
| Architecture | 16.36% | ||
| Code Quality | 27.27% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 9.09% | ||
| Total | 87.27% |
