3.2 PBFT and Governance Council

In order to overcome the limits of the POA, as explained in Section 2.2, the BORA Team wanted to change the consensus algorithm for BORA 2.0 and, through much research, drew its attention to Klaytn’s consensus algorithm PBFT. As already explained in Section 3.1, there are many benefits in changing the consensus algorithm to be the same as the public blockchain Klaytn.

PBFT is a Byzantine Fault Tolerance model and has the advantage of resolving the drawbacks of PoW and PoS, such as the uncertainty in the penalty and efficiency issues. of resolving the drawbacks of PoW and PoS, such as the uncertainty in the penalty and efficiency issues. As with the Hyperledge Fabric, as the block is generated after a majority decision is made, there’s no branching that ensures finality. The PBFT operates as follows: firstly, the client broadcasts the request to all nodes. The Leader becomes the Primary and will consecutively deliver the instructions to the other nodes. When each node receives the instructions broadcasted, it will proceed to send a response to all nodes, including the Leader. When each node receives the delivered instructions above a certain number, then it will re-send the received signal to all nodes including the leader. When each node receives above a certain number of received instructions, then it will perform the received instructions and register the block and return the replayed message to the client. Because the block is generated by a majority decision as compared to PoW or PoS, there is no branching of the blockchain. As such, a block once confirmed will not be changed and can ensure finality. Further, as compared to PoW, there is no need to repeat the calculation until the conditions are satisfied, so there is an advantage of rapid processing. Should an attempt of improper use be made, there still needs to be a majority vote, and even if the Primary sends false information, if all participants monitoring the Leader’s movement determine that it is false, then they can request to change the Leader on a majority vote. As such, it is an algorithm with very strong fault tolerance.

BORA 2.0 wants to change the consensus algorithm to PBFT for its speed, fault tolerance and finality as described above. If the consensus algorithm is changed, it is possible to reduce the risk related to security, which is a drawback of PoA, and gain the advantage of PoA’s speed and efficiency. Further, when operating in the same algorithm for the public blockchain Klaytn, which forms the base for BORA 2.0, it is anticipated that it will be easier to collaborate with several partners that are already active in Klaytn.

Along with the change in the consensus algorithm, we intend to change the node operation method to be the Governance Council (the “GC”), which is the same as Klaytn, for the majority decision-making that is the foundation for PBFT. By changing to the GC structure, we expect that the issue of the closed-off private chain of BORA 1.0 will immediately be resolved. As Klaytn has been operating through the GC structure for several years, its speed, efficiency as well as transparency in information have been reliably proven.

Currently, there are a total of 20 GC Partners who wants to form a future with BORA 2.0, who are as follows:

The preliminary role of BORA’s GC Partners on the PBFT Algorithm is the operation of each individual node. As such, BORA’s GC Partners must stake above a certain amount of BORA Tokens so that all participants of the BORA ecosystem can obtain computing resources above a certain standard required and for the conduction of responsible activities.

In truth, more than the node operation as described above, the greater responsibility of the BORA GC is to make decisions on BORA’s key changes in various circumstances. The Partners participating in the GC should prioritise the profits of the BORA’s ecosystem rather than their own profits and should actively participate in the Platform’s decision-making based on this.

Any new joining partner other than the current 20 Partner companies would need a recommendation from one of the BORA GC Partners and the majority vote approval of the BORA GC Partners.

The BORA GC is composed of the Token Committee, Contents Committee, Tech Committee, Marketing Committee, and the GC Partner would be allocated to each Committee based on their specialities and contributions. The Chairpartner, who would be the leader of all the GC Partners, would receive proposals on key matters from each Committee and would hold a regular or extra meeting without any objections. The decision to pass or reject the matters introduced via meeting and voting would be decided by the GC. In the initial two years, for timely execution, the Chairpartner position will be taken by MetaBora, a key partner of the BORA Network.

An example of the key matters for each Committee is as follows:

Further details on the definition of the GC, the composition of the GC and the management policy was decided on BORA GC’s 1st General Meeting on 8th of April, 2020. Details of this will be covered at 4. BORA 2.0's Governance Council.

June17.2002 Comment;

BORA has one more GC partner company of Mythical Games.