OmiseGo Review and Rating

“Shop” Derek DeYoung

I want to get through old but still valuable whitepaper — “OmiseGO Decentralized Exchange and Payments Platform” (dated June 17, 2017), which, one of the first of its kinds, tried to introduce a fully decentralized and interoperable coins’ exchange market.

Citing: OmiseGo “is an open distributed network of validators which enforce behavior of all participants. It uses the mechanism of a protocol token to create a proof-of-stake blockchain to enable enforcement of market activity amongst participants.”

Ranking this paper on “System”: Security-Velocity-Engineering- Transparency rating sub-scale presents a challenge, because, for metrics, such as “Velocity” and “Security”, we have to measure the proposed networks aggregatively for clearing, custody and orderbook matching transactions.

Additionally, the network’s architecture is based on multiple eWallets interchange, OmiseGO blockchain ledgers holding the balance of funds per eWallet service and the trading engine. On top of that, overall complexity of the platform is enhanced by breaking it into three major components: ODEX (Tendermint exchange protocol), Plasma (Ethereum) and wallet SDK.

All in all, this design will create a whole number of new bottlenecks. Result: “c” for “Velocity”.

As to “Security” looks like OmiseGo chain would be as strong as its weakest link. Moreover, even if its different components might theoretically offer a relative safety, with that level of system’s “convolutedness”, until I see its beta, I’m not convinced by the paper’s authors that it will be secured enough. Result: “b — “.

“Engineering” is “b+” for, despite a number of questionable assumptions authors made (like, for example, citing: “ … if every pair crosses with ETH, spreads would be much smaller provided low currency volatility …”), a network’s general blueprint seems to me relatively well-thought trough, whilst not completely original.

I rate OmiseGo “Transparency” as “a — “ for, although, authors are set themselves on the road to achieve the full platform’s decentralization, it’s still not clear how they are able to transfer their network from the initial phase of centralized orders validation (with Omise company functioning as an operator) to a distributed validators state, specially, in a view of PoS, which also might lead to more centralized governance model.

If our crypto-community will not support independent ratings, who else will? Please, visit my Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/svetsedov

“System”: Security-Velocity-Engineering-Transparency rating: b — cb+a —

Link: https://cdn.omise.co/omg/whitepaper.pdf

FYI: here’s the link to my new YouTube channel, where I analyze and rank DLT white papers: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS_lbTlt5ErIEvld1alkdvw/featured