Introduction
Qubic.li stands as a pioneering platform unlocking the potential of Qubic, a revolutionary project spearheaded by Sergey Ivancheglo, known for his groundbreaking work on IOTA and NXT. Qubic converges Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) with Smart Contracts, introducing distinctive features that transcend conventional cryptocurrency boundaries.
Innovation
Qubic harnesses the fusion of DLT and Smart Contracts to introduce frictionless microtransactions via Qubic Units (QUs), decentralized decision-making through quorum-based systems, and scalable AI solutions. Its quorum-based computer (QBC) system is poised to redefine the cryptocurrency landscape.
Architecture
Qubic‘s architecture is built upon a distributed ledger technology that utilizes a consensus algorithm to maintain a secure and synchronized record of all transactions. It implements a Useful Proof-of-Work (UPoW) system, directing mining capacities toward AI training. Computors, validated by a quorum, execute transactions and smart contracts. The Spectrum, Qubic’s decentralized ledger, records transparent and tamper-proof transactions within each epoch, ensuring a clear transaction history.
Qubic Code Quality
Qubic directly executes Turing-complete smart contracts written in C++, ensuring swift contract execution in seconds, contrary to virtual machine-based platforms. This approach maximizes computing power efficiency and contributes to feeless transactions within the network. Operating directly on bare metal and in UEFI mode, Qubic leverages the full potential of the underlying hardware, ensuring high efficiency and performance.
Product Roadmap
Qubic’s product roadmap emphasizes continuous innovation and enhancement. The project aims to expand its AI capabilities, optimize its UPoW system, and further integrate its quorum-based decision-making process. Future developments also include enhancing user experience and increasing the robustness of its computational infrastructure.
Usability
Qubic’s direct “bare metal” code execution allows for the fastest Turing-complete smart contracts executed in seconds. The platform is user-friendly with its feeless transactions and efficient smart contract execution. QUs act as computational ‘energy’ units that are burned upon usage and allocated within a seven-day epoch, driving the ecosystem’s functionalities.
Team
Founded by Sergey Ivancheglo, the mastermind behind IOTA and NXT, Qubic is backed by a team of experienced developers and blockchain experts. The team’s expertise in AI, DLT, and smart contract technology positions Qubic at the forefront of technological innovation in the blockchain sphere.
Conclusion
Qubic emerges as a groundbreaking platform, showcasing Qubic’s potential to reshape the cryptocurrency landscape. Its unique blend of DLT and Smart Contracts, coupled with efficient consensus mechanisms and AI integration, positions it at the forefront of technological innovation in the blockchain 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) | 11 | ||
| How have similar projects performed? | Medium | 1 | |
| Are there too many innovations? | Regular | 2 | |
| 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) | 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? | 5+ | 2 | |
| Developers average Git Background? | Senior | 1 | |
| Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 47 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 20.00% | ||
| Architecture | 16.36% | ||
| Code Quality | 21.82% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 9.09% | ||
| Total | 85.45% |
