Introduction
Kirobo is a non-custodial platform that offers a range of tools from a single platform, the ‘Liquid Vault,’ enabling developers and end-users to build advanced and secure decentralized apps. The project is designed to make crypto as safe and convenient as online banking. Kirobo is built on Future Conditional Transactions (FCT), which offers advanced smart contract capabilities through pre-built software components, making it easier to build decentralized apps with advanced features.
Innovation
Kirobo is an excellent infrastructure product that allows users and developers to build advanced and specialized smart contracts or sequences of transactions to leverage DeFi to its full potential. The project scores high in innovation thanks to its FCT technology, which offers a range of benefits for developers building decentralized applications (dApps).
Architecture
Kirobo’s well-written whitepaper and technical documents explain the FCT’s decentralized network of activators to process transactions. The project offers tools for users to recover lost funds, password-protected safe transfers, and automatic allocation to various recipients following inactivity. The FCT system operates on the FCT smart contract architecture, underpinned by a decentralized network of activators. The architecture is simple and easy to understand.
Code Quality
Kirobo’s FCT system provides a range of pre-built models and plugins that developers can use to add advanced functionality to their dApps quickly. The project offers a high degree of customization, and the FCT system provides a more efficient and cost-effective solution than traditional smart contracts. FCT’s backend is not completely open-sourced, but the code review is done by analyzing the smart contracts that FCT uses for handling transactions and all other related repos that are public on their GitHub, which doesn’t mean a less adequate review in this case.
Product Roadmap
Kirobo’s FCT is deployed and available on the mainnet. They plan to release an open-source server for activators that will allow them to get and store locally all active FCTs.
Usability
Kirobo not only allows the development of specialized smart contracts or sets of transactions through its language FCTL and SDKs but also offers a visual builder, which is super easy to use by end-users and developers alike.
Team
Analyzing their GitHub, only four active developers with a senior background were found, on average.
Conclusion
Kirobo’s FCT system offers a range of benefits for developers building decentralized applications, including pre-built models and plugins, customizable user experiences, a high level of customization, efficient and cost-effective solutions, and reduced development time. The project scores well in innovation, architecture, and code quality. The team behind Kirobo comprises a small group of developers. Kirobo’s FCT is a promising technology that could play a significant role in advancing the DeFi space.
| 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? | Good | 2 | |
| Are there too many innovations? | Regular | 2 | |
| Percentage of crypto users that will use the project? | 6% to 10% | 3 | |
| 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? | Not too complex | 2 | |
| Time taken to understand the architecture? | 20-50 minute | 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? | Good | 2 | |
| How well is the code commented? | Good | 1 | |
| Overall quality of the test coverage? | Good | 1 | |
| Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Good | 1 | |
| 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) | 5 | ||
| Number of active developers? | 3+ | 1 | |
| Developers average Git Background? | Senior | 2 | |
| Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 47 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 16.36% | ||
| Architecture | 20.00% | ||
| Code Quality | 21.82% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 9.09% | ||
| Total | 85.45% |
