FAQ

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 light weight, 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 way well known in our industry (Cosmos, Hyperledger, Ethereum Enterprise, Polkadot). The Komodo tech stack is 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

OFC has excellent credibility and strong networks in agrifood, as is reflected by the OFC board members. Amongst OFCs paying customers are leading brands like LDC (world’s biggest commodity trader), Ahold Delhaize (global retailer nr 10), Refresco (world’s biggest bottler) and CitroSuco (world’s biggest orange producer). By developing open source and spinning-up industry-owned (and governed) industry chains, like JuicyChain, the industry is in the lead and adoption is fast-tracked. Industry leaders are the biggest fans of OFC as growth of adoption benefits them directly.

There are three core USPs that make OFC unbeatable (see more detail in the whitepaper):
– Low and predictable costs
– Interoperable with all data systems
– Farm-friendly with easy entry (self-onboarding, no entry fee for farmers)
We are the only traceability solution that offers these 3 features.

Cost efficient: one of the bigger barriers to adopting (blockchain) traceability systems is transaction costs. We’ve seen that many supply chains that handle volumes cannot move beyond a pilot as costs increase with volume. OFC is intentionally developed to work with no 4 gas fees (mandatory blockchain processing fees) and with zero transaction costs. We’ve implemented spam protection in a different way to secure our industry chains (transaction fees often have a protection function). OFC does not have gas fees, as decentralised logic is processed within the consensus layer, there is no virtual machine. Participants run blockchain nodes decentralising and securing OFC. The costs to run these nodes are kept at minimum and are not volume related.

Interoperability with existing software, including other blockchains, in the supply chains. The food industry is notoriously slow to adopt new technology. Therefore, the onboarding experience needs to be seamless and efficient. OFC is fully interoperable with existing data systems, and users can even do the onboarding on their own accounts. This ease of onboarding accelerates adoption. Any actor can enter OFC at whichever stage of the supply chain, depending on their own software and preferences. It does not require the use of any third-party program in order to input information.

Farm-friendly and inclusive: our technology allows for mobile apps and all farm management systems to directly interact with OFC. An interface for farmers without a digital data system will be created, linking all individual farmers into the supply chain. Farmers are critical in our food system and have the most valuable data on soils and crops. Hence, it is mission-critical to enable farmers to own, upload and earn from data. We developed something that we call autonomous onboarding, so any party – including smallholders – can connect to OFC.

OFC has 3 revenue streams. Different to most – if not all – token projects, the core of the OFC model is a SaaS business model with fiat revenue from maintenance and subscriptions on the industry chains. This model is successfully implemented in the juice industry with currently 10% of the global juice industry onboarded. We onboarded 4 additional supply chains in 2022 and aim for 10 additional chains per year so that we have 10% of the total food industry onboarded by 2030. 10% is the ultimate tipping point to establish system change. 

OFC also receives revenue from public grants as OFC serves a public benefit. In 2022, this part was 30% of the total revenue.  

Thirdly, once the $OFC token is live, it generates revenue. The $OFC token is part of the industry chains ecosystem. See our token utility for more explanation. 

We have a configurable system of chains. By default, we configure chains to have 1 minute blocks. Each block can handle 1400 batches with each batch approximately having 12 transactions of data (approx 16.800 transactions per minute). Each block is 4MB

In the case of an industry needing to supply more data than the 16.800 transactions per minute (for 1 minute blocks), we have mapped out a strategy of handling the increased capacity in two ways:

– Faster block times, e.g. 30 second blocks, to handle 16800 transactions per 30s, therefore doubling capacity per industry
– Or preferred, splitting an industry into multiple chains. The same strategy will be used for logistics & telemetry data relating to batch delivery. For example: Juicychain has the Juicychain batch chain, and the Juicychain logistics chain. The same can be done within the JuicyChain logistics chain, where logistics data can be split into multiple JuicyChain logistics chains.

The address format is portable between industry chains as well. If an existing JuicyChain company is to start in e.g. the vegetable sector, the same company addresses can be used (not enforced). For instance, mango ice cream can use the pulp from mangoes on JuicyChain with a vegetable chain constituent. The address data can easily be re-used. Otherwise, if a company chooses not to use the same address across chains, the data can be shared using blockchain data oracles to link a final product between two chains (Juicy and VegyChain).

Currently, there are no transactions on OFC. The governance strategy of OFC is for the satellite foundations like JuicyChain to determine the implementation strategy of OFC. Refresco is selecting a product to launch in the UK consumer market in Q4, which will be the first product to be fully incorporated on the JuicyChain. To do this effectively, they are onboarding their entire supply chain onto the JuicyChain first, to avoid holes in the information published. Transaction activities on JuicyChain will pick up from Q4 2022.

We are launching a test project that proves the transaction capacity of OFC. We expect to have the results by mid August.

Every onboarded participant adds 1 node to the network. The per participant stagings are scaled down after successful operation in production.

As per 1 Aug 2022
– JuicyChain integration testing network (dev) 45 nodes
– JuicyChain staging network 9 nodes
– JuicyChain production network 6 nodes

OFC uses data (claims) from existing systems like ERP systems. It needs a one-off onboarding (we can do that for 5k or they can do it themselves with a manual), then the data push from an ERP is automated to OFC. So very easy and it adds value to existing (ERP) systems. As LDC puts it: “we have so much data that we would like to share with consumers, we just do not have an adequate system, that is why we are so enthusiastic about OFC”.

OFC works from the premise that each participant is responsible for their own data quality. Data is publicly verifiable so when errors are identified, the whole network sees these errors.

Participants can be expelled by the foundation. The foundations can burn tokens, taking away access. That is a key rationale for companies to have to deposit FOOD tokens.

$OFC is an ERC-20 / BEP-20 token. The $OFC token will live on the most used blockchain platforms like Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain (BSC). These networks have validators and incentives in place that validate $OFC.

The OFC ecosystem does not need additional validators. OFC is an ecosystem of industry-specific blockchains based on the same blueprint. The ecosystem is a leaderless, decentralized setup. This ecosystem does not require any validators because it is not a blockchain, it is a network with the $OFC token. $OFC is an ecosystem token that is validated by other blockchain platforms.

Within OFC, each industry chain has its own token that does require validators, as we primarily use Proof of Stake for consensus. Instead of paying transaction fees to validators (like VeChain that has volume-based pricing), the participants pay infrastructural costs and execute network validation with no financial rewards. The infrastructural costs are predictable and hardly influenced by volume. This value-based pricing is suitable for food and helps agrifood businesses to improve their business models, rather than adding a business model to agrifood, as does VeChain.

Candidates for industry chain validation are the industry leaders. Unlike the $OFC token, the token (coin) used on an industry chain does not have a financial value. The only entities that have an incentive to maintain the health of the network are participants.

OFC participants operating in one or more industry chains need these chains to work optimally.

There are no plans to attract other validators. Although we are open to interesting models for locking the $OFC token to engage the community, we do not see obvious opportunities to attract additional rewards for that validation.

We don’t have a main chain. However, we could, for instance, offer extra security for all industry chains. A main chain in which they can secure with checkpoints. That would fit in our modular approach and can be executed if we feel the necessity.

The reasons to have administrations in industry chains are:
● To keep it lightweight (only administration, a modular approach)
● To keep it interoperable (compatible with blockchain standards)
● To incorporate triple entry accounting (enforced correct balances between parties)
● To keep it transparent (avoid complexity like sharding or rollups)
● To be endless scalable (avoid complexity like sharding or rollups)
● To enable zero transaction fees (avoid transaction fees and smart contract gas)

From a very practical perspective it also makes sense, why would one care for all proofs on tomato batches in the same administration of all soy batches? To have all food in the world tracked in one administration would make this an administration doomed to fail only because of size and complexity.

To be honest we feel that any main chain solution that would work, would end in either intransparency (sharding, rollups), high fees and/or centralised processing in the case of success.

We’ve contacted some CEXs and discussed the simultaneous launch of ERC20 with BEP20 for $OFC with the Komodo team (as they have done this before).

Most exchanges can very quickly onboard ERC20 tokens on their system. However, the marketmaking goes hand in hand with the listing. So that is why we really need input and the support of our private round investors here.

The New Fork is a company founded by in 2017, Marieke de Ruyter de Wildt with a mission to bring blockchain to food. Initially, the ambition was to bring existing solutions to food. In our attempts, we came to realise that they lacked (1) a suitable business model, they were too expensive, (2) an understanding of agrifood, or agriculture, and (3) interoperability. We therefore started to develop a food specific protocol in 2019: OFC. Marieke registered the OFC foundation in 2021 with the vision to shape OFC into an unstoppable ecosystem, similar to bitcoin. StrikeTwo was initiated by The New Fork in 2019 to make new tech accessible to agrifood companies and drive adoption. StrikeTwo will become the OFC Accelerator in 2023.