Introduction
ZKCross is a Zero-Knowledge based fusion platform that offers a secure and efficient solution for developing hybrid applications by integrating on-chain and off-chain smart contracts with Zero-Knowledge proofs. This review aims to provide an objective assessment of ZKCross based on various technical aspects.
Innovation
ZKCross brings several innovative features to the table, earning it a high innovation score of 9 out of 11. By combining on-chain and off-chain smart contracts, ZKCross enables trustless communication while reducing data overhead and transaction costs. The fusion platform’s components, such as the shadow execution layer, zkWasm, Fusion SDK, state aggregator, and zkProxy, work together seamlessly to provide a unique and versatile environment for building Web3 applications.
Architecture
With a perfect score of 11 out of 12, ZKCross demonstrates a robust and well-designed architecture. The platform’s architecture allows for the execution of off-chain contracts in the shadow execution layer, reducing the burden on the main chain. The zkWasm virtual machine ensures the security and integrity of off-chain computations through automatically generated zkProofs. The Fusion SDK facilitates easy development of hybrid applications and contracts, enabling on-chain and off-chain components to communicate effectively. The state aggregator acts as a universal firmware that synchronizes and rolls up states across different blockchains, promoting seamless communication.
Code Quality
ZKCross excels in terms of code quality, receiving a score of 13 out of 15. The project embraces open-source principles and utilizes reliable programming languages such as C, C++, Rust, Erlang, Ruby, among others. The codebase demonstrates a substantial number of lines and commits per month on GitHub, indicating an active and dedicated development community. The overall quality of the code and test coverage is outstanding, ensuring a reliable and maintainable solution.
Product Roadmap
The review does not provide a specific score for the mainnet release of ZKCross, as this information is not available at the time of writing. However, it mentions that the project has plans to launch the testnet soon, indicating active development and progress towards a production-ready solution.
Usability
ZKCross aims to deliver a user-friendly experience for infrastructure projects, earning a full score of 5 out of 5. The platform focuses on ease of use for end customers, ensuring a seamless integration of on-chain and off-chain components. This usability-centric approach enhances the adoption potential of ZKCross within the crypto community.
Team
ZKCross boasts a strong and capable team, scoring 6 out of 7 in the evaluation. The project benefits from the contributions of five or more active developers with senior-level experience. The team’s coding style is solid, indicating a high level of expertise and professionalism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ZKCross presents an innovative fusion platform that seamlessly integrates on-chain and off-chain smart contracts using Zero-Knowledge proofs. The project showcases a robust architecture, high-quality codebase, and a strong development team. With a Tech Score of 80.00% and promising potential after the mainnet launch, ZKCross has the potential to make a significant impact in the realm of decentralized application development.
| 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) | 13 | ||
| 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? | Bad | 0 | |
| 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) | 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 | 16.36% | ||
| Architecture | 20.00% | ||
| Code Quality | 23.64% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 10.91% | ||
| Total | 89.09% |
