Introduction
Planck Network presents itself as a decentralized AI cloud solution designed to reduce costs and increase accessibility for AI workloads. By distributing AI computations across various devices, Planck aims to address challenges associated with centralized cloud providers, such as high costs, security concerns, and rigid billing structures. This review critically examines Planck Network’s technical infrastructure, code quality, roadmap, and overall feasibility without promotional bias.
Innovation
Planck’s core innovation lies in leveraging a decentralized compute network, aggregating computing resources from consumer devices, enterprise hardware, and specialized AI clusters. Unlike Web3 GPU-sharing networks that merely provide raw compute power, Planck integrates a structured AI development platform that bridges the gap between compute resources and AI workloads.
Key innovative aspects include:
- Decentralized AI Compute Network: Reduces reliance on centralized cloud providers.
- Cost-Optimized Pay-Per-Use Model: Allows for flexible AI model hosting, training, and fine-tuning.
- Enterprise-Ready AI Services: Supports major open-source AI models and allows data customization.
Architecture
Planck Network employs a decentralized computing infrastructure, consisting of:
- Consumer devices (smartphones, personal computers) contributing idle computing power.
- Enterprise hardware (data center surplus compute capacity).
- Specialized AI hardware (GPU clusters optimized for AI inference and training).
The architecture supports:
- AI Model Deployment & Hosting: Users can deploy trained AI models.
- AI Training & Fine-Tuning: Custom AI model training using large datasets.
- AI Inference: Real-time predictions and inference using deployed models.
While the concept is innovative, speed and performance remain concerns. Testing of the model deployment tool indicated slow response times, raising questions about efficiency.
Code Quality
Code maintainability and transparency are major concerns:
- Code commits, history, and developer activity lack transparency.
- Active developers exhibit limited experience, averaging only ~300 commits/year.
- Code appears to be manually uploaded, a practice that suggests poor technical expertise.
- Discussions with Planck leadership indicated ambiguity in rating development quality, suggesting internal uncertainty regarding technical execution.
These factors indicate a lack of robust DevOps practices and quality assurance in the codebase.
Product Roadmap
Planck Network’s roadmap is ambitious but poses execution risks:
Q1 2025:
- Pre-Token Generation Event (TGE).
- Proprietary bridge for cross-chain asset transfers.
- Integration of Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) for security.
Q2 2025:
- Post-TGE activities, including launching an in-house decentralized exchange (DEX).
- SocialFi integration for community engagement.
Q3 2025:
- Scaling compute resources by integrating data centers, mining farms, and consumer devices.
- Deployment of specialized AI compute nodes for industries such as healthcare and finance.
Q4 2025:
- Transition to a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) for governance.
The roadmap is technically ambitious but lacks detailed execution clarity, particularly concerning infrastructure scalability and network decentralization.
Usability
Planck provides a set of AI-focused features, including:
- API Calls: Integrate Llama LLM into chatbots.
- AI Inference: Deploy trained AI models for real-time predictions.
- AI Training & Fine-Tuning: Train or refine models using proprietary datasets.
- AI Model Hosting: Deploy and integrate trained models into applications.
Supported models include:
- Llama 8B – Text generation
- Llama 70B – Text generation
- Llama 405B – Text generation
Issues:
- Model deployment speed is slow, which may impact real-world usability.
- Playground testing revealed performance bottlenecks.
- Billing transparency is a positive aspect, offering clear cost tracking.
Team
Planck’s team comprises blockchain and AI professionals, but developer transparency is lacking:
- Developers exhibit limited public activity and contributions.
- Technical leadership does not instill confidence in consistent high-quality development.
- Active developer engagement in GitHub repositories is low.
These factors raise concerns about the project’s long-term viability and execution capability.
Conclusion
Planck Network presents an ambitious vision for decentralized AI cloud computing, but serious concerns remain regarding execution, code quality, and scalability. While its architecture and cost-saving innovations offer promise, the lack of developer transparency, slow model performance, and uncertainties in active development pose risks to adoption.
| Initial Screening | |||
| Keep researching | |||
| Does this project need to use blockchain technology? | Yes | ||
| Can this project be realized? | Yes | ||
| Is there a viable use case for this project? | Yes | ||
| Is the project protected from commonly known attacks? | Yes | ||
| Are there no careless errors in the whitepaper? | Yes | ||
| Project Technology Score | |||
| Description | Scorecard | ||
| Innovation (Out Of 11) | 11 | ||
| How have similar projects performed? | Good | 2 | |
| Are there too many innovations? | Regular | 2 | |
| Percentage of crypto users that will use the project? | Over 11% | 5 | |
| Is the project unique? | Yes | 2 | |
| Architecture (Out of 12) | 11 | ||
| Overall feeling after reading whitepaper? | Good | 2 | |
| Resistance to possible attacks? | Good | 2 | |
| Complexity of the architecture? | Not too complex | 2 | |
| Time taken to understand the architecture? | 20-50 min | 1 | |
| Overall feeling about the architecture after deeper research? | Good | 4 | |
| Has the project been hacked? | No | 0 | |
| Code Quality (out of 15) | 10 | ||
| Is the project open source? | Yes | 2 | |
| Does the project use good code like C,C++, Rust, Erlang, Ruby, etc? | Yes | 2 | |
| Could the project use better programming languages? | No | 0 | |
| Github number of lines? | More than 10K | 1 | |
| Github commits per month? | Less than 10 | 2 | |
| What is the quality of the code? | Good | 2 | |
| How well is the code commented? | Good | 1 | |
| Overall quality of the test coverage? | Good | 1 | |
| Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Good | 1 | |
| When Mainnet (out of 5) | 5 | ||
| When does the mainnet come out? | Mainnet | 5 | |
| Usability for Infrastructure Projects (out of 5) | 5 | ||
| Is it easy to use for the end customer? | Medium | 5 | |
| Team (out of 7) | 2 | ||
| Number of active developers? | Less than 3 | 0 | |
| Developers average Git Background? | Junior | 0 | |
| Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
| Total Score (out of 55) | 44 | ||
| Percentage Score | |||
| Innovation | 20.00% | ||
| Architecture | 20.00% | ||
| Code Quality | 18.18% | ||
| Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
| Usability | 9.09% | ||
| Team | 3.64% | ||
| Total | 80.00% |
