Invest in the future of agrifood

A transparent public verifiable food administration needs to be implemented on a protocol level for various reasons:

● To be maximal lightweight (only administration, a modular approach)
● To optimise interoperability (compatible with blockchain standards)
● To incorporate triple entry accounting (enforced correct balances between parties)
● To be maximal transparent (avoid complexity like sharding or rollups)
● To be endlessly scalable (avoid complexity like sharding or rollups)
● To enable zero transaction fees (avoid transaction fees and contract gas)

Our research led us to implement a multichain approach (like Polkadot or Cosmos, avoiding complexity in one main chain, offering layer 1 interoperability), a UTXO-based setup (like bitcoin, offering transparency, triple entry accounting and lightweight nodes).

Our main focus is trust and transparency for batches of food and their attached claims, like locations, quality, certificates etc. For this we clearly do not need smart contracts, so to keep our solution lightweight, we preferred to go ‘ledger only’ in a modular approach.

We found this setup in the Komodo tech stack which we use to create an independent layer 1 for each industry or niche market. The benefits of using this tech stack are that for the core and security, it is being worked on by a team that serves many projects with this same tech stack. In that respect comparable with for instance open source project Linux.

So, conceptually we build new chains (e.g. JuicyChain, CacaoChain, SoyChain etc) but technically we roll out custom chains in a well-known way in our industry (Cosmos, Hyperledger, Ethereum Enterprise, Polkadot). The Komodo tech stack has been an existing solution for custom chains since 2016.

With this tech stack as our administrative basis and our overarching $OFC token on Binance Smart Chain (BSC), we enable smart contracts on BSC, to interact with our batch and claim information. This is part of our modular vision in which the base administration remains lightweight and transparent per industry, while we offer the full benefits of mature smart contract platforms like BSC.

Traceability systems in agrifood should be interoperable, immutable, without transaction-fees and accessible to anyone (see OFC whitepaper for further explanation). Existing web2 traceability systems like Global Traceability are mutable and hence insufficient. The new generation of traceability systems like IBM Food Trust,TE-FOOD, ScanTrust, TOPL and FairChain are immutable but proprietary/permissioned (not interoperable), with transaction-fee based business models. This limits the scale and growth of these solutions. TOPL deserves an extra mention here as we share the vision for lightweight transparency enabled by UTXO logic for the ledger.

OFC is an ecosystem of agrifood-focused public layer-1 blockchains with the same setup as Polkadot/Cosmos, the same UTXO benefits as Bitcoin, turn-key interoperability by Komodo and by being layer-1’s, and a similar distribution scheme to Ripple. Furthermore, our innovative governance structure and token utility allow us to empower companies from farm to fork to become healthier, more efficient, and sustainable businesses.

The Open Food Chain stack is specifically designed to service the agrifood industry, known for having many players and high numbers of transactions. OFC enables real-world food batch-and-claim information to be found, verified and connected to the public by Web3 technology, the technology that adds a layer of value to and enables transactions as an integrated part of the internet. Our specific design keeps our solution lightweight, scalable and cost effective.

Blockchains are meant to be administrations and trust machines. An industry using Open Food Chain organises its network trust by using public blockchain consensus for its administration and oracles. With the OFC stack we can establish a peer-to-peer public chain infrastructure per industry, while being secure and decentralised. Our design principles of being lightweight, scalable and cost effective are met, as well as interoperability. Additionally, with our FOOD token, we can easily interact with any relevant smart contract platform for Web3 integration, such as Ethereum, Cardano or Solana.

We distinguish 3 layers in our solution design:

1. Web3 applications
2. Interoperability (layer 0)
3. P2P public blockchain (layer 1), the base layer for administration and oracles per industry (multi-chain)

Our tech stack for the base layer consists of:

• UTXO ledger (Bitcoin)
• Zero Knowledge proofs (Zcash)
• Advanced bitcoin script (Bitcoin, Ripple, Cardano)
• Proof of Stake (NXT)
• Checkpointing security (Komodo notary network)

As the tech stack is in constant public use because it shares its core code with the Komodo blockchain and many other ecosystem projects, it is battle tested 24 hours per day. Therefore it fits our security needs on the code level.

So how is this different from a solution built on Hyperledger?

Many competing projects, like IBM Food Trust and Linux Foundations Hyperledger Grid , are building upon Hyperledger. So here you find some key points on how we are different: 

1. Simplicity and Transparency: OFC provides an abstract administration of transactions with oracle features, ensuring a lightweight and transparent operation, unlike the complex and less transparent Hyperledger.
2. Security Without Smart Contracts: OFC blockchains don't rely on full featured smart contracts, but instead rely on a strict set of conditions. This makes the blockchain more secure and efficient without sacrificing functionality.
3. True P2P Decentralization: Low operational costs make it easy for participants to run a node, fostering genuine peer-to-peer connectivity. Hyperledger's less decentralized nature makes it harder and costlier to achieve the same.
4. Uncompromised Public Verifiability: OFC offers transparent, publicly verifiable data, while Hyperledger solutions are typically only verifiable for consortium members, potentially compromising credibility.
5. Standardized Consensus and Security: OFC utilizes battle-tested public consensus and security protocols out of the box, in contrast to Hyperledger's often centralized solutions, which require additional work and audits for decentralization.
6. Interoperability with Industry Standards: OFC's standard blockchain setup (Bitcoin architecture) ensures seamless compatibility with multicoin wallets, exchanges, and explorers.
7. Less Complexity, More Security: OFC's streamlined setup reduces security risks and complexity, while Hyperledger's flexible architecture increases vulnerabilities and integration challenges.
8. Affordable Inclusion for All: The cost-effective nature of OFC's setup and operation makes it easier to include smaller players in the supply chain, unlike the cost-intensive Hyperledger-based solutions. 

And how is this different from a solution built on Ethereum? 

Another big part of competing projects are using Ethereum, the Ethereum concept, or Enterprise Ethereum / Quorum. Projects like Morpheus, VeChain, Ambrosus and Unibright.

1. OFC blockchains are an abstract (enforced) administration of transactions + oracle features. Ethereum is much more feature rich and flexible with their smart contracts. However, while smart contracts are all processed and executed decentralized, they are mostly centrally controlled when not generic (like for instance ERC20).  Transparency would be lower on Ethereum and the smart contracts would need to be audited on each iteration, still leaving us with a centralized setup.
2. OFC transparency means that all data is publicly verifiable. Enterprise Ethereum  solutions are by default only verifiable for consortium members. Public verifiability is something that can be granted (hash on public Ethereum), but loses credibility because of that very fact. 
3. OFC blockchains use battle tested standard public consensus and security out of the box, as do Enterprise Ethereum solutions. They are still, however, mostly consortium run, so not publicly verifiable. They can be set up as more decentralised, but that would require additional security methods, for instance by P2P decentralization and audits. P2P decentralization is harder with Ethereum due to it being a much heavier node cluster to operate.
4. OFC blockchains do not run smart contacts. This keeps them lightweight and secure.
5. Because OFC blockchains are lightweight, operational costs remain low for all participants running a node, allowing them to truly be P2P. Enterprise Ethereum solutions are less suited for this kind of decentralization, resulting in them being less scalable and more vulnerable to security threats. Solutions running on main chains (layer 1 chains like Ethereum, VeChain, Ambrosus) will face higher gas and transaction fees while they or other projects on that chain gain success. 
6. Because OFC uses the standard blockchain setup (Bitcoin), we are interoperable with the industry standards: multicoin wallets, exchanges and explorers. Ethereum based solutions will be interoperable as long as you stick to standard contracts (ERC20, ERC721, etc) but not with your own smart contracts.
   

Why not use Solana, Polkadot, Cardano, Tezos or any other popular chain?

Origin Trail is the main competitor we see here and they plan to utilize a Polkadot Parachain for their public proofs. Their main administration is hosted by a decentralised Google graph, which is not a blockchain, so they aim to primarily use a blockchain for public proofs and smart contracts. They used Ethereum for public proofs and smart contracts as well, which apparently led them to value the Polkadot proposition.

Like OriginTrail we believe that to keep our system lightweight, interoperable and cost effective, we need to have a multi-chain (or many-chain) solution. One single blockchain platform is:

1. a) not sufficient to service a large part of the agrifood industry and
2. b) would charge increasing transaction and gas fees as success grows. 

Platforms that keep fees low pay through either less decentralization (delegates), less transparency (rollups) or increased complexity (sharding). While Polkadot is somewhere in between, as we could have leased one parachain, such a process would not be easy as they are allocated via non-permissioned candle auctions. That said, it would also not solve any extra challenge for us. The preference of many custom and autonomous blockchains for many industries that we have does not fit the Polkadot model by design. As does our preference to run a validatory network, like Bitcoin, in a many-chain setup. The lightweight, transparent and autonomous industry administrations we create, are not improved by Turing complete platforms like Polkadot. .

So how about Cosmos?

Cosmos is a very interesting tech stack to build public layer 1 blockchains with. However, this tech stack focuses on full featured computational blockchains (integrated smart contract logic) and does not feature a UTXO base layer which we prefer for administration transparency, security and lightweight processing. Another challenge with Cosmos is the security of your layer 1 setup. It would require extensive audits (smart contracts, bridges) and decentralization from the start to protect the chain itself from attacks. Although Cosmos implemented Interchain Security in March 2023, it will take time (say 2 years) to prove itself. That said, Cosmos technology itself does not have the security-by-design of a native UTXO based ledger, therefore it will always bear the greater risk associated with the Turing complete blockchains.

Open Food Chain has a native $OFC token with two main utilities:

1. Supply Chain Governance - activated at public launch
2. Web3 Services - activated in 2024/2025

Another utility for the B2C side of $OFC is under construction and expected to be launched in 2025, adding another powerful value driver to the token. 

1. Supply Chain Governance

The core utility of the $OFC token is supply chain governance. Participants using one of the industry specific satellite chains need to purchase a yearly subscription for the right to write to OFC. This subscription is an NFT. The NFT is non-transferable and specific to each industry chain. The membership price for the NFT will be free for farmers and 20k euros per year for all other participants.

Tokens used on the industry chain, for instance $JCC for Juicy Chain, are released by a faucet on a ‘as needed’ basis. The faucet checks the presence of the access-NFT in the wallet and the need for industry coins. These are then distributed to the node’s wallets.

Most Agri-Food companies have no experience in creating and managing crypto wallets. The OFC Foundation will assist in the and allocate this to the wallet of the participant. This by-pass will be operational until agrifood businesses are buying tokens off the market directly. Please see our whitepaper for more information. 

Until a DAO is in place, the OFC- and industry foundations will manage the voting process.

2.Web3 Services

An exciting utility of the $OFC token is that it enables Web3 service providers on adjoining blockchain platforms to integrate with one or more industry chains. Web3 service providers in for instance DeFi, insurance or carbon credits.Service providers buy tokens from the market and burn them for serviced access or transaction capabilities on one or more industry chains. This accelerates the digitisation of the agrifood sector and allows easy access to the agrifood industry for (web3) digital services and capital. With Zero Knowledge Proofs added to OFC in 2023, more options arise as viewing shielded data can be monetised.

Yes, we do token investments only. We see this as a borderless, future-resistant form of investment, tying in with our vision to fully develop the FOOD token for the 11 Trillion agrifood industry. Due to the nature of the technology used, all value created would be funneled into the token, and not into a legal entity in a specific jurisdiction. We raised 550k in the seed round from the following parties:

● Komodo Platform: Next to the capital they provide, Komodo is a strong technology partner to progress development and security audits. Komodo also has an IDO platform and will assist in marketing.
● 0xDesign Capital: Ran by one of the founding members behind Polygon, will provide design and marketing services.
● Crypto Oasis: Founder of the fund worked at IBM with IBM Food Trust for 13 years, and is a valuable connection to both agri and crypto. Crypto Oasis is a leader in the UEA blockchain space, organizing a weekly meetup, where they present projects and enable networking.
● Nordic Velo: The market maker behind DAOMaker and several other projects.
● NGG.io: a new VC fund with strong KOLs/influencer ties. The KOLs they can provide are excellent for us in the marketing stage of Open Food Chain