Introduction
Kroma introduces a pioneering solution within the Ethereum scaling landscape, aiming to balance the benefits of Optimistic and Zero-Knowledge (ZK) Rollups through a novel hybrid approach. This review delves into the technical and strategic facets of Kroma, assessing its innovation, architecture, code quality, product roadmap, usability, team expertise, and positioning in the blockchain ecosystem.
Innovation
Central to Kroma’s innovation is the Hybrid Rollup Solution, merging Optimistic Rollup mechanisms with ZK fault proofs. By incorporating zkEVM technology, influenced explicitly by Scroll, Kroma seeks to harness the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ZK proofs while maintaining operational viability under present technological constraints. The Kroma Guardian House (KGH) NFTs and the Security Council also introduce novel governance and security paradigms, aiming to democratize network security participation and enhance platform integrity through distributed governance.
Architecture
The architectural design of Kroma is noteworthy for its blend of Optimistic Rollup with ZK Fault Proofs, creating a forward-compatible platform ready for the eventual complete transition to ZK Rollups. The system’s Security Council, Validator, and Sequencer System underscore a commitment to decentralization and security, laying a solid foundation for a scalable, resilient network. However, the intricacies of this hybrid model introduce significant complexity, necessitating careful management to ensure user accessibility and system integrity.
Code Quality
While specific details on the codebase are not provided in this review, the emphasis on ongoing internal and external audits suggests a high standard of code quality. Kroma’s commitment to security, evidenced through these audits and developing a permissionless validation system, speaks to a rigorous approach to software development and network maintenance.
Product Roadmap
Kroma’s roadmap outlines a clear trajectory towards transitioning from an Optimistic to a ZK Rollup model. This strategic vision demonstrates an understanding of the evolving technological landscape and positions Kroma as a forward-thinking player in Ethereum scaling solutions. The roadmap’s success hinges on technological advancements in ZK proof generation, representing both a significant opportunity and a challenge for the project.
Kroma Usability
The introduction of the KGH NFT Staking Mechanism and a user-friendly approach to validator participation are commendable efforts toward lowering the barrier to entry for network participation. However, the platform’s usability will ultimately depend on integrating complex hybrid rollup technologies into an accessible, intuitive user interface.
Team
While the review does not delve into specific team members, the innovative approach and strategic vision of Kroma suggest a team with deep technical expertise and a comprehensive understanding of blockchain technology, governance, and security challenges. The effectiveness of the Security Council will also reflect the team’s capability to select diverse, aligned members committed to the project’s long-term success.
Conclusion
Kroma represents a compelling, innovative solution in the Ethereum scaling arena, distinguished by its hybrid rollup approach, emphasis on security, and democratized network participation. While its ambitious goals set a high bar for success, they also necessitate navigating considerable technological and governance challenges. The project’s ability to overcome these hurdles will be critical in realizing its vision for a scalable, secure, and decentralized Ethereum ecosystem.
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) | 10 | ||
How have similar projects performed? | Good | 2 | |
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) | 14 | ||
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? | Outstanding | 2 | |
Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Outstanding | 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) | 6 | ||
Number of active developers? | 5+ | 2 | |
Developers average Git Background? | Senior | 2 | |
Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
Total Score (out of 55) | 49 | ||
Percentage Score | |||
Innovation | 18.18% | ||
Architecture | 16.36% | ||
Code Quality | 25.45% | ||
Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
Usability | 9.09% | ||
Team | 10.91% | ||
Total | 89.09% |