Aug 17, 2020
The Baseline Protocol Execution Review and Rating (SVET)
A business / management part of BP is as much labyrinthine as anything else within its corporate realm. The ‘Governance’ file on GitHub stipulates that “The Baseline Protocol is governed by the Ethereum OASIS Project Governing Board under the OASIS Open Projects Program.” and “… The Board includes representatives from Ethereum OASIS Open Project Sponsors that have committed to the Entity Contributor Licensing Agreement. … “
Currently, this board consists of reps from only three organizations: Ethereum Foundation (Swiss non-profit foundation ‘Stiftung Ethereum’, which was created in 2014 to finance Ethereum growth), ConsenSys (founded by Joseph Lubin in 2015 to support Dapps development on Ethereum) and ‘Enterprise Ethereum Alliance’ (founded in March 2017 to incorporate Ethereum into large, established institutions, includes about 150 members). However, it’s not yet everything, which BP has to offer on the side of its ‘structuring’. There is also ‘Technical Steering Committee’, which ‘directs the day-to-day technical activities of Baseline’.
This Committee includes, on top of already mentioned big corps bodies (plus Ernst & Young, Unibright and Chainlink) a number of smaller companies such as TSC Chair (a consulting boutique associated with one of the ConsenSys employees), Aztec (London based startup which promotes its own ‘privacy protocol’), Provide (a small non-DLT comp selling to its clients ‘payments solutions’), Web3Labs (another startup from England, which markets its own SDKs for blockchains), Splunk (non-DLT ‘data platform’ which works with big corps), and, as organizers put it on their web page, ‘Code (zic!) Convergence’ (which is, in fact, ‘Core Convergence’ — a small tech consultancy firm based in San Francisco).
Overall, it would be very intriguing to see how productive this aquarium filled in with ‘big and small fishes’ will be in ‘directing day-to-day activities’. Besides, what is the real cost-effectiveness of BP for all involved parties remains a mystery to an outside observer. Therefore, I have to express my concern about those issues by assigning “c+” for ‘Solution’. However, imho, the legal (‘Validity’) and ‘Team’ sides of this enterprise both deserve the firm ‘a’.
As to BP’s Equity’ (or the current states and its finance) it’s yet another unknown in this corporate equation. Apparently, project organizers do promote ‘decentralization’ and ‘openness’ strictly up to the limits prescribed by their corporate agendas. Therefore, until further clarification I have to pull it down to ‘c’ level.
Total “Execution” (management): Solution (business model) — Validity (legal viability) — Equity (state of finance) — Team: c+/a/c/a
For detailed blockchain industry reports and projects analytics visit our platform: https://svetrating.com
For more information and community talks on this subject join our Whitepapers analysis Telegram group: https://t.me/joinchat/I5eQ-A6FSC2vXg_PNgFwJw
or my Twitter: https://twitter.com/SvjatoslavSedof
… also if you’re residing somewhere in the South Bay, CA, please, join our meetup group: https://www.meetup.com/South-Bay-Decentralized-Finance/
