Frequently Asked Questions

This is not an either / or question. Vleppo is both. Vleppo has built (and is currently expanding) a Layer 1 blockchain protocol, alongside an application built on top of this protocol.

Any applications built on an L1 or L2 protocol are strongly dependent on and constrained by the qualities of said protocols. A system can be only as fast, secure, capable, and easy to use as its foundational framework allows it to be. Therefore, it is logical to assume that building an application, as well as its framework, with a singular purpose and synergy will produce solutions with the best possible results. This is the reason why we are building our application alongside a new Layer 1 blockchain protocol - it allows us to be totally flexible with our designs and deliverables, and make minimal compromises in terms of balancing security, functionality, accessibility, and performance of the whole platform.

There are potential benefits to building an application as a Layer 2 solution on Ethereum, namely Ethereum's popularity, size of its node network, and extensive documentation on its architecture and functionality. However, as mentioned in the previous answer, such a solution would be constrained by the framework it is built on, and in the case of Ethereum, introduce roadblocks that could be avoided by building on a purpose-built L1 protocol instead.


Ethereum L2 solutions are fundamentally dependent on the Ethereum mainnet, usually in the form of a L2 status snapshot inside a Layer 1 mainnet transaction. To submit L1 transactions or purchase L2 tokens, ETH is required to pay the transaction fees. That ETH must be sourced either from the application's users themselves, or from a pool held and managed by the L2 solution creators. Due to the requirement to invest in ETH and the volatility in its value, this presents a severe issue in terms of accessibility of both creating and using an L2 application.


The Ethereum protocol is not the most performant either - all smart contracts on the Ethereum mainnet and most of its L2 offshoots are currently made for and run by the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which is currently widely considered to be a performance bottleneck, reducing transaction throughout, and increasing transaction confirmation times:


The EVM is planned to be eventually replaced by the Ethereum WebAssembly (eWASM) as part of the switch to Ethereum 2.0, which is based on the WASM (WebAssembly) W3C open standard:


eWASM brings many promising and much needed changes to Ethereum's smart contract execution system, however it is unclear when it will be able to replace the EVM, or whether smart contracts written for the EVM will be completely portable to eWASM. This creates uncertainty as to whether existing (or planned to be built in the next couple years) L2 solutions will be compatible with ETH 2.0 and introduces risk of the solution becoming broken or dependent on a deprecated network.


We have chosen not to take this risk and have instead built and are offering independent L1 solutions with scalability, performance, and security, while maintaining enough functionality to rival certain L2 solutions on other protocols. In the future we are planning to expand to L2 solution development for various blockchain platforms, including our own.

The Komodo platform, at the time of writing, offers a constantly updated toolkit for creating a wide variety of independent, customizable, and highly performant L1 blockchain protocols, which can be enhanced with custom consensus modules, security from 51% attacks, and super-light client node infrastructure for easy access to the network. 


Our current blockchains have a wide range of features enabled through smart contract-esque custom consensus modules, from automated faucets and ERC-20 style tokens to systems such as the Agreements module, a contract management system that functions entirely on-chain. This list of features will undoubtedly expand in the future, due to efforts of both the Komodo community and the Vleppo team. 


Vleppo's blockchain protocols are secured by Komodo's Delayed Proof-of-Work (DPoW, not to be confused with Proof of Work or PoW) security service, which renders our blockchains secure against 51% of attacks regardless of the node network size, popularity, or total hash rate. Komodo's DPoW has been proven to be highly secure against 51% attacks: 


In addition, our blockchain solutions are highly scalable and accessible using super-light client nodes, powered by Komodo's nSPV technology. Super-light nodes have negligible minimum system requirements while maintaining nearly identical functionality of a full node, making it a valid option for nearly any device up to and including embedded systems. This freedom allows for a wide range of applications for our blockchain solutions, as well as making it accessible for anyone in the world regardless of social or financial standing.

Layer 1 blockchain protocols are commonly plagued by scalability and performance issues because of their extremely high security, decentralization, and reliability requirements. This makes the optimization required for a fast and scalable solution highly difficult. Our Layer 1 blockchain protocol is able to achieve a high level of scalability (up to 50,000 TPS) using cross-chain technology (similar in function to sharding) and super-light client nodes enabling easy access for newcomers, while maintaining a high level of performance due to our smart contract solutions being written in C++ and compiled into native code, all without compromising the security of the system.

We expect to gain traction in the same way that other equivalent SaaS companies do – through solving actual problems that still plague ordinary individuals and businesses today, such as client default, legal disputes, ransomware attacks and much more, while marketing our services and solutions to the right places at the right times. 


We are confident that we can tackle these problems with our experience, knowledge, and portfolio of work, in terms of both blockchain technology and other software. As an example, see our Agreements module, which harnesses blockchain technology to enforce mutual assent and escrows for contracts, with an intuitive and familiar interface compared to projects like Docusign. Our familiarity with our L1 blockchain protocol allows us to easily spin up new independent blockchains at will at almost no cost, while being able to rapidly create new applications on these systems to demonstrate use cases and exploit opportunities in the market quickly. 


Our offered services and solutions have been proven to be in demand by businesses in a wide range of industries - for instance, we were able to design and build a blockchain-based marketplace for second hand renewable energy assets in a matter of a few months at very little cost and were able to come up with blockchain-based solutions for decentralised storage and ransomware protection for enterprises. 


Our focus has always been on gaining mainstream traction and solving issues relevant to the mainstream. If these issues can be solved with blockchain technology, we will choose whatever blockchain protocol will suit the situation best while providing the least amount of risk. By sticking to a single type of blockchain protocol (especially one like Ethereum, which would introduce technical constraints as described in the answers above), we would likely become a provider for hyper-specialized solutions in search of a problem, while only potentially gaining traction in the blockchain and crypto space, which is not our main priority or goal.