Introduction
Venom is a multi-blockchain network designed to improve scalability and transaction speeds while reducing fees. The platform utilizes a Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism with The Byzantine fault-tolerant (BFT) algorithm to reach a consensus agreement between validators. This review aims to provide an objective assessment of the Venom blockchain’s technology, including its innovation, architecture, code quality, product roadmap, usability, and team.
Innovation
Venom is a unique, layer-0 blockchain that supports up to 2^32 workchains and has a property of interoperability, allowing asset transfers between workchains. The project scored high in innovation due to its potential for over 11% of crypto users to use the platform. Similar projects have performed well, making the Venom blockchain an attractive option for blockchain enthusiasts.
Architecture
Venom’s architecture is designed as a heterogeneous multi-blockchain platform with dynamic sharding. The masterchain state stores the network configuration, information about a set of validators, their stakes, and election rounds. While the architecture is not significantly better than other projects in this area, the Venom blockchain supports infinity sharding, meaning tasks can be shared between groups of validator nodes depending on the load. This design feature could prove advantageous in future developments of the platform.
Code Quality
The quality of code on the Venom blockchain is very high. The infrastructure is forked from other projects, mainly Everscale and TonLabs. The code is well-commented, with good test coverage, and has an outstanding maintainability index. Github is maintained very well, with more than 10k lines of code and over ten commits per month. The project scored very high in code quality.
Product Roadmap
There is no word on the mainnet launch of the Venom blockchain, and the project roadmap is not clearly defined. While a testnet is available, obtaining credentials from the team over Discord is required. Thus, the project scored low in this area.
Usability
Usability for infrastructure projects is good as many projects have been built on top of the Venom blockchain. These include wallets, cross-chain bridges, AMMs, and NFT marketplaces. The project scored high in usability.
Team
The core Venom team has decent experience in full-stack blockchain and DeFi project development. However, no specific information about the team’s credentials is available on the project’s website, and their LinkedIn profiles do not provide much insight into their experience. Thus, the project scored average in this area.
Conclusion
Overall, the Venom blockchain is a promising project that scored well in innovation, code quality, and usability.
| 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) | 8 | ||
| Overall feeling after reading whitepaper? | Medium | 1 | |
| 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? | 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? | Outstanding | 2 | |
| Overall quality of the test coverage? | Good | 1 | |
| Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Outstanding | 2 | |
| When Mainnet (out of 5) | 5 | ||
| When does the mainnet come out? | Mainnet | 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 | 1 | |
| Developers coding style? | Outstanding | 3 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 48 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 18.18% | ||
| Architecture | 14.55% | ||
| Code Quality | 24.45% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 10.91% | ||
| Total | 87.27% |
