Scam or legit? Vite's answers


Original link: Scam or legit? Vite

Recent answers to our questions from the Vite team:

Q: If the target network is rolled back or hard forked, the mapped transactions in the Vite system cannot be rolled back. This provokes a double spending attack. For example, getting 1 ETH from the Ethereum blockchain, this 1 ETH remains in Vite’s wallet EVEN IF the transaction for sending 1 ETH from Etherium to Vite is rolled back. Besides setting a delay parameter for the cross-chain Relay consensus group, will they have other defense mechanisms?

A: Yes, it will happen, same as the centralized exchanges. The cross chain relay nodes will take the loss.

Q: Both users always having to be online to perform a transaction is a very annoying requirement. How will they solve this problem in the future?

A: Users do not need to be online at the same time to perform transfer transactions.
When the sender sends a request transaction, the receiver can be offline. Once the requested transaction is successfully confirmed by the system, the value will be deducted from the sender's account. The receiver can issue another Response Transaction to receive the value any time later.

Things are different in the case of performing a smart contract call. The nodes which produce Response Transactions of a smart contract need to be always online to ensure the availability of the smart contract.

Q: Using Loopring makes the project reliant on Loopring. What will happen to Vite if Loopring suddenly disappears, breaks, gets hacked, etc.? Do they have some action plan or mechanism to minimize the damage from such a situation?

A: Vite implements Loopring Protocol instead of calling any external services of Loopring. In fact, Loopring is an open protocol. A protocol will never disappear or break. The proven correctness of Loopring Protocol is another topic. We will work with Loopring team on the security of their protocol.

Q: Will the Name Service be protected from a homograph attack?
If yes, how?

A: We will limit the character set to ASCII and provide a library to hash the name to a pixel image like this: The text of names may look similar but the profile pictures look completely different.

Q: Contract Update. Hackers or malicious owners of the contract (aka, scammers) can change the internal structure of the smart contract — and users will think that everything is ok. How will this problem be solved? (If keyword static is purposefully not used.)
Will the delegation of a consensus group proxy node be mandatory to avoid the falsification of a smart contract?

A: We don't think delegated nodes consensus is a good idea. Critical contracts should be defined as static. The non-static contracts play the role of the backend of dApps. The owner of the contract is responsible for the correctness of the contract.

Q: Block Pruning. Another sign of the centralization of the system. When all transaction data is stored only on certain nodes, knocking out those nodes or infecting them with a virus can have dire consequences. How justified is this decision? How many “full nodes” do they expect to have in the network? (Having enough full nodes in the network would mitigate the problem… though not fully solve it.)

A: This is a problem. Tradeoff between security and storage efficiency is always a headache. At least the 25 nodes in Snapshot Consensus Group will be full nodes. Any ideas on full node incentive are appreciated.

Q: When coins outside of the Vite system are purchased, how will the situation be resolved where the coin’s price changes in the time that it takes for a node to process it?

A: The exchange model of Vite is Taker-Maker. Any order has a limited price and user can cancel his order If he is not satisfied with the order price.


ОК. Now the situation with the project has cleared up, we have no more questions.
We've also noticed that their telegram group has around 18 000 members, twitter has around 1 200 followers, and discord has - 700 members.
It seems that Vite team is working hard on activity in social media.
We have updated our previous verdict.

New Verdict

Not a scam, Approved!

Disclaimer: The above audit is not in any way financial advice or a solicitation to buy - it's merely our collective opinion that we are kind enough to share with you. Don't make us regret that.

The report is prepared in partnership with

Our links:

Comments 0