Introduction
Safe, governed by SafeDAO, is a cutting-edge project designed to establish smart accounts as the cornerstone of internet ownership. This review delves into Safe’s various components and innovations, assessing everything from its architecture and code quality to its product roadmap and usability.
Innovation
Safe introduces a novel concept of smart accounts aiming to be the default standard for digital interactions. This innovation is central to democratizing access to smart accounts, enabling users to manage their digital assets and interactions securely and transparently.
Architecture
Safe’s architecture comprises a robust, modular account abstraction stack called Safe Core. This stack includes:
- Safe Core SDK: Simplifies interactions with Safe Smart Account contracts and offers various kits for different functionalities.
- Safe Core API: Powers interfaces that manage Safe account-related information.
- Safe Smart Account: It acts as a modular and extensible smart contract account set to become the standard in all smart contract-based wallets and applications.
The structure facilitates seamless integration with digital platforms and EVM chains, enhancing interoperability within the blockchain ecosystem.
Code Quality
Safe’s code is open-source, allowing for transparency and community involvement in its development. The code quality is reportedly high, with regular updates and thorough documentation to assist developers in integrating and building upon the Safe platform.
Product Roadmap
The roadmap for Safe is ambitiously geared towards expanding its ecosystem through strategic updates and enhancements. Plans include advancing the Safe Modules and Guards’ capabilities and growing support for additional blockchain networks to increase their applicability and adoption.
Usability
Safe enhances user experience by offering a CLI tool for account management and modules that add functionalities like daily spending allowances and recurring transactions. The diverse SDK kits also cater to various developer needs, making Safe adaptable and user-friendly.
Safe Team
The development of Safe is spearheaded by SafeDAO, comprising core contributors, backers, and members from GnosisDAO. This decentralized collective, Safe {Guardians}, comprises experienced developers and ecosystem contributors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to the project’s ongoing development and governance.
Conclusion
Safe stands out in blockchain with its innovative approach to smart accounts. By offering a secure, flexible, and user-centric platform, Safe is well-positioned to revolutionize internet ownership. The project’s commitment to open-source development and its strong governance structure through SafeDAO promise a robust and forward-thinking evolution. As Safe continues to grow and refine its offerings, it remains a significant player in transitioning to a more decentralized and user-controlled digital world.
| 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 – 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 min | 1 | |
| Overall feeling about the architecture after deeper research? | Good | 4 | |
| 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) | 7 | ||
| Number of active developers? | 5+ | 2 | |
| Developers average Git Background? | Senior | 2 | |
| Developers coding style? | Outstanding | 3 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 52 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 16.36% | ||
| Architecture | 20.00% | ||
| Code Quality | 27.27% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 12.73% | ||
| Total | 94.55% |
