Blockchain Platforms Software Market SWOT Analysis by Key Players : IBM, Intel, Microsoft

Latest Market intelligence report released by HTF MI with title “Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market Size, Status and Forecast 2019-2025” is designed covering micro level of analysis by manufacturers and key business segments. The Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market survey analysis offers energetic visions to conclude and study market size, market hopes, and competitive surroundings. The research is derived through primary and secondary statistics sources and it comprises both qualitative and quantitative detailing. Some of the key players profiled in the study are IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Ethereum, Ripple, Quorum, Hyperledger, R3 Corda, EOS, OpenChain, Stellar, SAP, Amazon & Mastercard.

What’s keeping IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Ethereum, Ripple, Quorum, Hyperledger, R3 Corda, EOS, OpenChain, Stellar, SAP, Amazon & Mastercard Ahead in the Market? Benchmark yourself with the strategic moves and findings recently released by HTF MI

Get Free Sample Report + All Related Graphs & Charts @ :

Market Overview of Global Blockchain Platforms Software

If you are involved in the Global Blockchain Platforms Software industry or aim to be, then this study will provide you inclusive point of view. It’s vital you keep your market knowledge up to date segmented by Applications [E-Commerce, Finance, Medicine, Real Estate & Others], Product Types [, Private, Public & Consortium] and major players. If you have a different set of players/manufacturers according to geography or needs regional or country segmented reports we can provide customization according to your requirement.

This study mainly helps understand which market segments or Region or Country they should focus in coming years to channelize their efforts and investments to maximize growth and profitability. The report presents the market competitive landscape and a consistent in depth analysis of the major vendor/key players in the market along with impact of economic slowdown due to COVID.

Furthermore, the years considered for the study are as follows:

Historical year – 2014-2019

Base year – 2019

Forecast period** – 2020 to 2026 [** unless otherwise stated]

Enquire for customization in Report @:

**Moreover, it will also include the opportunities available in micro markets for stakeholders to invest, detailed analysis of competitive landscape and product services of key players.

The titled segments and sub-section of the market are illuminated below:

The Study Explore the Product Types of Blockchain Platforms Software Market: , Private, Public & Consortium

Key Applications/end-users of Global Blockchain Platforms SoftwareMarket: E-Commerce, Finance, Medicine, Real Estate & Others

Top Players in the Market are: IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Ethereum, Ripple, Quorum, Hyperledger, R3 Corda, EOS, OpenChain, Stellar, SAP, Amazon & Mastercard

Region Included are: United States, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India & Central & South America

Extracts from Table of Contents (ToC) :

Browse Complete Table of Contents (ToC) @


Blockchain Platforms Software Market Insights

3.1. Market Segmentation

3.2. Industry landscape, 2015 – 2026

3.2.1. COVID-19 impact on industry landscape

3.3. Industry ecosystem analysis

3.3.1. Raw material suppliers

3.3.2. Manufacturers

3.3.3. Distribution channel analysis

3.3.4. Vendor matrix

3.4. Technology landscape

3.5. Raw material analysis by Type

[, Private, Public & Consortium]

3.5.5. COVID-19 impact on raw material supply, by region North America Europe Asia Pacific LATAM MEA

3.6. Regulatory landscape

3.7. Industry best practices & key buying criteria

3.8. Pricing analysis

3.9.1. Regional pricing North America Europe Asia Pacific Latin America MEA

3.10 Cost structure analysis

3.10.1. COVID-19 impact on pricing

3.11. Industry impact forces

3.11.1. Growth drivers

3.11.2. Industry pitfalls & challenges

3.12. Innovation & sustainability

3.12.1. Future trends including COVID-19 impact Production trends Demand trends

3.13. Growth potential analysis

3.14. Porter’s analysis

3.14.1. Supplier power

3.14.2. Buyer power

3.14.3. Threat of new entrants

3.14.4. Threat of substitutes

3.14.5. Industry rivalry

3.15. Competitive landscape

3.15.1. Company market share analysis, 2019

3.15.2. Strategy landscape

3.16. PESTEL analysis

3.17. …………………………..

Complete Purchase of Latest Version Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market Study with COVID-19 Impact Analysis @

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like LATAM, North America, Nordics, Western Europe or Southeast Asia.

About Author:

HTF Market Report is a wholly owned brand of HTF market Intelligence Consulting Private Limited. HTF Market Report global research and market intelligence consulting organization is uniquely positioned to not only identify growth opportunities but to also empower and inspire you to create visionary growth strategies for futures, enabled by our extraordinary depth and breadth of thought leadership, research, tools, events and experience that assist you for making goals into a reality. Our understanding of the interplay between industry convergence, Mega Trends, technologies and market trends provides our clients with new business models and expansion opportunities. We are focused on identifying the “Accurate Forecast” in every industry we cover so our clients can reap the benefits of being early market entrants and can accomplish their “Goals & Objectives”.

Contact US :

Craig Francis (PR & Marketing Manager)

HTF Market Intelligence Consulting Private Limited

Unit No. 429, Parsonage Road Edison, NJ

New Jersey USA – 08837

Phone: +1 (206) 317 1218

[email protected]

Connect with us atLinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter


  • No Related Posts

Blockchain Platforms Software Market to Witness Huge Growth by 2028 | SAP, Amazon, Ethereum

A new research study from JCMR with title Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market Research Report 2029 provides an in-depth assessment of the Blockchain Platforms Software including key market trends, upcoming technologies, industry drivers, challenges, regulatory policies & strategies. The research study provides forecasts for Blockchain Platforms Softwareinvestments till 2029.

The report does include most recent post-pandemic market survey on Blockchain Platforms Software Market.

Competition Analysis : SAP, Amazon, Ethereum, IBM, Microsoft, Ripple, R3 Corda, Hyperledger, Intel

Request Free PDF Sample Report @:

Commonly Asked Questions:

  • At what rate is the market projected to grow

The year-over-year growth for 2020 is estimated at XX% and the incremental growth of the market is anticipated to be $xxx million.

Get Up to 40 % Discount on Enterprise Copy &Customization Available for Following Regions & Country: North America, South & Central America, Middle East & Africa, Europe, Asia-Pacific

  • Who are the top players in the market?

SAP, Amazon, Ethereum, IBM, Microsoft, Ripple, R3 Corda, Hyperledger, Intel

  • What are the key market drivers and challenges?

The demand for strengthening ASW capabilities is one of the major factors driving the market.

  • How big is the North America market?

The North America region will contribute XX% of the market share

Enquiry for segment [email protected]

This customized report will also help clients keep up with new product launches in direct & indirect COVID-19 related markets, upcoming vaccines and pipeline analysis, and significant developments in vendor operations and government regulations

Geographical Analysis:

• North America: United States, Canada, and Mexico.

• South & Central America: Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.

• Middle East & Africa: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Egypt and South Africa.

• Europe: UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Russia.

• Asia-Pacific: India, China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, and Australia.

Market Analysis by Types: Private, Public, Consortium

Market Analysis by Applications: E-Commerce, Finance, Medicine, Real Estate

Some of the Points cover in Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market Research Report is:

Chapter 1: Overview of Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market (2013-2025)

• Definition

• Specifications

• Classification

• Applications

• Regions

Chapter 2: Market Competition by Players/Suppliers 2013 and 2018

• Manufacturing Cost Structure

• Raw Material and Suppliers

• Manufacturing Process

• Industry Chain Structure

Chapter 3: Sales (Volume) and Revenue (Value) by Region (2013-2018)

• Sales

• Revenue and market share

Chapter 4, 5 and 6: Global Blockchain Platforms Software Market by Type, Application & Players/Suppliers Profiles (2013-2018)

• Market Share by Type & Application

• Growth Rate by Type & Application

• Drivers and Opportunities

• Company Basic Information


Note: Please Share Your Budget on Call/Mail We will try to Reach your Requirement @ Phone: +1 (925) 478-7203 / Email: [email protected]

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia.

About Author:

JCMR global research and market intelligence consulting organization is uniquely positioned to not only identify growth opportunities but to also empower and inspire you to create visionary growth strategies for futures, enabled by our extraordinary depth and breadth of thought leadership, research, tools, events and experience that assist you for making goals into a reality. Our understanding of the interplay between industry convergence, Mega Trends, technologies and market trends provides our clients with new business models and expansion opportunities. We are focused on identifying the “Accurate Forecast” in every industry we cover so our clients can reap the benefits of being early market entrants and can accomplish their “Goals & Objectives”.

Contact Us:


Mark Baxter (Head of Business Development)

Phone: +1 (925) 478-7203

Email: [email protected]

Connect with us at – LinkedIn


  • No Related Posts

Change at Hyperledger: IBM no longer dominates leadership, Intel steps back

Hyperledger, the open source community for enterprise blockchain technology, today announced the results of its Technical Steering Committee elections. In the outgoing committee, five of eleven members were from IBM, with a sixth from IBM owned Red Hat. The committee has been expanded to 15 members to reflect the 16 enterprise blockchain projects under the Hyperledger umbrella.

The new committee members represent 11 organizations, up from seven. Including Red Hat, IBM now has five members, with two new members from ConsenSys, and representatives from Walmart, Oracle and Telefonica.

Executive Director of Hyperledger, Brian Behlendorf, was pleased with the greater diversity, although he was keen to ensure IBM’s contribution is recognized, saying their previous influence over the TSC was “fairly reflective of the fact that IBM is still one of the companies that makes the most significant technical contributions to the overall Hyperledger effort. That is not just on Fabric. That is across a number of different projects. And they deserve due credit for that.”

The outgoing TSC was already moderately diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity, although it was almost entirely North American. The committee has new members representing Spain, India and China.

“The TSC is perhaps better thought of as a steering committee for the whole of the Hyperledger community, particularly how we weave our separate efforts together into a logical whole. I’m excited to think about the next year,” said Behlendorf in a statement.

In terms of the TSC’s roles, an important one is deciding which projects get the go ahead or shutdown. If only a small number of projects are represented on the TSC, that can cause issues.

There has been some lively debate in this area in the last couple of months. Transact is a Hyperledger project designed to enable smart contract languages to work across multiple ledgers, much like Digital Asset’s DAML. There were questions about whether Transact should continue as a standalone project which received some pushback.

“The only negativity currently is generated from the TSC and this surrounding discussion fallout,” said Shawn Amundson from Bitwise, a key maintainer of both Transact and Sawtooth. “There is a big difference between ‘how should we get projects to collaborate more’ and ‘we should kill this project we aren’t involved with’,” said Amundson.

Thankfully that’s about as heated as it gets at Hyperledger, with the response to the issues dealt with fairly and logically. The result was Transact is still a standalone project. There was some discussion about the struggles of sharing components across the main Hyperledger DLTs.

Behlendorf shared his thoughts on the same thread: “We all have to get better at building upon each other’s work if we’re going to survive what is clearly still a very long blockchain winter, and very few of the solutions in the market will survive it. My hope is that at least a few of the ones that do are at Hyperledger.”

Free riders

One of the other rumblings we heard from people active in the Hyperledger community was a general comment that not enough code is shared as open source.

“The Freerider problem is inherent (in open source software). It’s something that I believe gets solved over time through an alignment of economic interests,” Behlendorf told Ledger Insights. “IBM has made quite a bit of money from Fabric and that drives their continued investment. And the other cloud vendors have started to see that pay off. I believe as it increases and becomes more core to their business, they will have no choice but to increase their investment in that direction, because that’s the only way they get agency out of their use of this technology. It’s not a short term play.”

Behlendorf elaborated that the companies that contribute code get to steer a project’s direction, calling it a “do-ocracy”.

He clarified that it’s expected that companies will leverage open source to create added value solutions or ‘unique value propositions’ which are proprietary and from which they make money. However, someone may come along that is willing to develop an open source version in the same area. And that’s a risk the proprietary company takes.

Intel steps back

While IBM continues to move forward with Hyperledger Fabric, in 2016 Intel contributed another blockchain, Hyperledger Sawtooth. Behnlendorf mentioned there are at least 25 projects using Sawtooth. We’re aware of some high profile adopters, including Cargill, Target, Salesforce and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

However, currently Bitwise which works closely with Cargill is the primary maintainer of Sawtooth. And Intel’s Dan Middleton, who was previously on the TSC did not stand for re-election. Behlendorf confirmed that “Intel has dialed down its involvement,” which he attributed to its interest in confidential computing. The chip company is participating in the new Confidential Computing Consortium, which is part of the Linux Foundation, Hyperledger’s parent. Intel SGX provides memory encryption for secure enclaves. These enable processors to ring-fence work out of reach of a hacked operating system.

COVID’s opportunities and challenges

Meanwhile, Behlendorf was keen to highlight new sources of momentum in terms of identity, direct COVID-19 projects and central bank digital currencies. Identity is an important use case for proving a recent negative COVID-19 test or, in future, a vaccination. It was a shame that Sovrin, which uses Hyperledger Indy, radically cut staff right before the pandemic took hold in the West. Two COVID-19 related projects we’ve previously written about are Trust Your Supplier and MiPasa.

At the same time, he acknowledged the headwinds and that innovation and experimentation are trickier.

Change at Hyperledger: IBM no longer dominates leadership, Intel steps back“This space is no doubt influenced by this macroeconomic climate that we’re in,” said Behlendorf. He gave examples such as IBM’s Food Trust and Tradelens when he said “but it’s very healthy. We’ve seen the companies that are able to demonstrate their solutions to solid real prosaic problems doing well. ”

Image Copyright: Woodsy / BigStock Photo


The Evolving Workplace

Business leaders and industry experts have given their views on how recent events have reshaped the workplace and their future technology strategies. I recently participated in the “The Evolving Workplace,” a virtual CxO round-table, hosted by Dell Technologies and Intel on 16th June. Michael Imeson, a Contributing Editor at FT Specialist, set the tone for the discussion when he stated, “The workplace before COVID-19 was rapidly evolving anyway, driven by technology, communications, environmental considerations and people’s changing attitudes to work,” and, “A professor at King’s College London told the FT that COVID-19 had brought forward two … READ MORE


  • No Related Posts

Power Settings in Citrix Hypervisor: C-states, Turbo and CPU Frequency Scaling

This article explains how to handle your power settings and how you can change the configuration to fit your specific needs.

Citrix Hypervisor (formerly XenServer) has the following power settings:

For Intel processors:

  • Use all available C-states regardless of BIOS settings

  • Use the “performance” CPU frequency governor

  • Use frequency scaling and Turbo mode as controlled by the BIOS settings

For AMD processors:

  • Use the BIOS settings to know which C-states are supported

  • Use the more power-friendly “ondemand” CPU frequency governor

  • Use frequency scaling and Turbo mode as controlled by the BIOS settings

It is recommended to use Citrix Hypervisor’s default configuration and to enable OS-controlled frequency scaling and Turbo mode in the BIOS.


  • For Intel processors, Citrix Hypervisor uses all the available C-states regardless of the BIOS C-state settings.
  • For AMD processors, changing C-state settings in the BIOS does have an effect for AMD processors.

Citrix Hypervisor uses Xen Project Hypervisor’s means of enumerating and using C-states for newer Intel processors. Xen Project Hypervisor comes preloaded with the C-states and performance characteristics of each processor family (like Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc). It chooses the correct information at boot based on the processor used. This improves performance because Xen can make more accurate decisions about which C-state to use. For example, C1 and C1E are treated as two separate states which gives Xen more flexibility in the choice of C-state. Modern CPUs can transition between C-states very quickly so the use of deep C-states has minimal performance impact but provides great potential for power saving.

Falling back to use of BIOS C-state settings

To revert to the C-state configuration for Intel processors that was used by older versions of XenServer (6.2 and earlier), use the following command in dom0:

/opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-xen mwait-idle=false

A reboot is required for this change to take effect. After this, controlling C-states in the BIOS will have an effect on Citrix Hypervisor. This is not a recommended configuration as it is likely to lead to reduced performance.

To go back to the default configuration, use the following and reboot:

/opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --delete-xen mwait-idle

Exploiting Turbo mode

Using all the available C-states gives the processor most thermal headroom to enter Turbo mode. Hence the default configuration that uses all available C-states should give the best performance for processors supporting a Turbo mode.

For maximum performance, it is recommended that Turbo mode is enabled in the BIOS.

To determine whether Turbo mode is enabled, use the following command in dom0:

# xenpm get-cpufreq-para | fgrep turboturbo mode : enabled

To verify that Turbo mode is being used stress the CPU in a VM and check that the CPU frequency is higher than the rated value:

# grep "model name" /proc/cpuinfomodel name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz

With VMs idle:

# xenpm start 1|grep "Avg freq" Avg freq 3503030 KHz Avg freq 2856840 KHz Avg freq 2788820 KHz Avg freq 2312680 KHz Avg freq 2210650 KHz Avg freq 3537040 KHz Avg freq 3469020 KHz Avg freq 2584760 KHz

With VMs busy:

# xenpm start 1|grep "Avg freq" Avg freq 3673080 KHz Avg freq 3571050 KHz Avg freq 3503030 KHz Avg freq 3537040 KHz Avg freq 3469020 KHz Avg freq 3537040 KHz Avg freq 3469020 KHz Avg freq 3571050 KHz

Avoiding Turbo mode

Some users might wish to avoid using Turbo mode, for example when running workloads that require low-latency wakeups, or when desiring consistent rather than maximal performance. In practice, this can normally be achieved by forcing the processor to stay in C0.

The maximum C-state can be set as in previous versions of XenServer (6.2 and earlier). To immediately force the processor to stay in C0, execute the following command in dom0:

xenpm set-max-cstate 0

Or, to make this change persist across reboots, use the following command and reboot:

/opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-xen max_cstate=0

Note that forcing the processor to stay in C0 will significantly increase the power consumption and may reduce the lifespan of the processor (From Section 4.2.2 of the 4th Generation Intel Core Datasheet Volume 1: “Long term reliability cannot be assured unless all the Low-Power Idle States are enabled”).

When setting a maximum C-state, note that C-state numbers do not necessarily correspond directly with ACPI C-state names. The C-states mentioned in the output of “xenpm get-cpuidle-states” are simply a numerical list of all the C-states that Xen knows about, listed as C0, C1, C2, etc. This means that ACPI C0 will appear as C0, ACPI C1 will appear as C1, ACPI C1E will appear as C2, and so on. Furthermore, some states might not be individually addressable with “xenpm set-max-cstate <X>” and setting the maximum C-state to X does not necessarily mean that only C0..CX will be used.

CPU Frequencies

Frequency scaling and Turbo mode are controlled by the BIOS settings. Citrix Hypervisor controls each processor core’s frequency by adjusting the P-state.

Citrix recommends configuring the BIOS frequency scaling settings to use “OS control” mode (or equivalent) and to enable Turbo mode.

In its default configuration,Citrix Hypervisor uses the “performance” governor for Intel processors and the more power-friendly “ondemand” governor for AMD processors. This is the recommended configuration.

  • The performance governor always sets the processor to its maximum P-state which results in the highest frequency being used.

  • The ondemand governor dynamically downclocks the cores. This can provide some power savings at the cost of performance.

For AMD processors, the “ondemand” governor is normally preferred as it gives a good compromise between performance and power-saving. By contrast, Intel processors typically save power by entering deep C-states so the “performance” governor is preferred.

Changing governor

Some users may wish to change the CPU frequency governor – for example, to sacrifice performance to make power savings, or vice versa.

In order to use a different governor at runtime, run the following command in dom0:

xenpm set-scaling-governor performance


xenpm set-scaling-governor ondemand

In order to make this change persist across reboots, use:

/opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-xen cpufreq=xen:performance


/opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-xen cpufreq=xen:ondemand

Setting the CPU frequency governor to “performance” should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the ability of the processor to enter Turbo mode for Intel processors. Since entering Turbo mode usually relies on other cores being idle, having the idle cores at a higher frequency does not matter because the default C-state configuration allows the processor to stop its clocks when idle.

Thermal effects

In order to maximize performance, CPUs should be allowed to run at maximum frequency. However, many CPUs will decrease their operating frequency if they overheat. Overheating is more likely to happen if cores are forced to run in P0 and C0 or while there is a sustained high CPU load.

In order to avoid overheating, the CPU and chassis fans should be configured to maximum speed. This will ensure CPUs stay cool at the cost of increased power consumption. Note that “adaptive” or “automatic” fan speed settings may not always go to maximum speed so do not necessarily perform maximal cooling.



I do not need a solution (just sharing information)

Hello, how are you?

I have an issue, here I have 3 services to WSS, one with port 8080, another with port 8443 and another with port 8084, this with port 8084 the service is down.

All of those services are using the IP as Host.

This IP is from Brazil…

But, I don’t know wich impact this can has here in our environment. If I lost one of those services, what can happens?



iExec and IT Behemoths Are Fixing Blockchain


iExec, the company that provides blockchain-based decentralized cloud computing, is on a roll. It has partnered with behemoth companies like Microsoft and Intel and presented a new product.

In a new tweet, iExec proudly announced that it has commenced a new collaboration with a number of companies. These include really big names like Microsoft, Intel, Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, and Consensys. The company adds that it has revealed the “first implementation of the new EEA Trusted Compute Specification.”

iExec is excited to announce the latest collaboration with @Microsoft, @Intel, @EntEthAlliance and @ConsenSys

Revealing the first implementation of the new EEA Trusted Compute Specification @ #Devcon5, Oct 9th

Official EEA announcement in thread below:

— iExec (@iEx_ec) October 8, 2019

iExec elaborates on the details in its Medium post and points out the flaws of the early blockchain systems. These include imperfect privacy and confidentiality. The solution? Adding trusted off-chain execution to a blockchain.

The new product, EEA Off-Chain Trusted Compute Spec V1.1, is set to do that. The company presented it at the Devcon 5 conference in Japan.

“The spec addresses how a smart contract on mainnet can offload its compute-intensive workloads to off-chain networking without compromising user experience and security,” the company writes.

What’s it all about?

According to the post, the specification has a specific purpose, i.e. to develop Hyperledger Avalon. The latter is the Hyperledger’s most recent project a.k.a as the Trusted Compute Framework (TCF), “which is a ledger-independent implementation that helps developers in building the next wave of confidential computing applications.”

For the uninitiated, Hyperledger Avalon combines elements of Hyperledger, EEA, and cloud service providers. Intel, iExec, Alibaba Cloud, Baidu, BGI, Chainlink, Consensys, EEA, Espeo, IBM, are all behind the product. Other companies include Kaleido, Microsoft, Banco Santander, WiPro, Oracle, and Monax.

That said, who benefits from using such a TCF? Developers who are seeking a trusted liaison between on-chain and off-chain networks. The use cases include loan systems, trusted tokens or attested oracles.

“The achieved result is a TTF (Token Taxonomy Framework) compliant application running in Besu, an enterprise Ethereum client compliant with the latest EEA Client Specification, and hosted on an off-chain EEA-compliant Trusted Compute pool. This pool is deployed by iExec on a Microsoft Azure SGX-enabled virtual machine,” concludes iExec.

In the past, Altcoin Buzz covered potential solutions for fixing Ethereum’s scalability. Read more here.


New Confidential Computing Solutions Emerge on the Hyperledger Avalon Trusted Compute …

As an open source reference implementation of the Trusted Compute API Specification, the Trusted Compute Framework (TCF) can help blockchain developers deliver the next wave of confidential computing applications. With TCF, developers can utilize Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) to access off-chain transaction resources and deliver confidential loan systems, trusted tokens, attested oracles, and more. Devcon 5* offers the first hands-on experience with TCF in a developer workshop.

blockchain graphic

Originated as open source software in Intel Labs, TCF code was contributed to Hyperledger earlier this year, first in Labs and most recently announced as a new project. Now known as Hyperledger Avalon, the concept of trusted compute has gained participation from more than a dozen developers including Alibaba*, Baidu*, BGI*, Chainlink*, ConsenSys*, Espeo*, iExec*, IBM*, Kaleido*, Microsoft*, Banco Santander*, and WiPro*.

TCF uses the Off-Chain Trusted Compute Specification defined in an Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA)* working group to help developers gain the benefits of computational trust and to mitigate its drawbacks. The off-chain execution enabled by the EEA Trusted Compute Specification allows a developer to perform complex transactions on-premise or in cloud-based virtual machines (VMs), off the shared ledger. Once complete, the results of these transactions can be posted back to the shared ledger. This approach helps improve transaction throughput and privacy while lessening the data load on the shared ledger.

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX play a key role in off-chain execution. By using a TEE, a developer can help improve the integrity of the link between off-chain and on-chain execution. Intel SGX capabilities such as code verification, execution isolation, and attestation verification can help provide a reliable link between main chain and off-chain compute resources.

Developer Workshop

At Devcon 5, the EEA Trusted Reward Token application is featured as a way to improve member-led team productivity, and also to help organizations around the world harness the power of collaboration. EEA members ConsenSys, iExec, Intel, Kaleido and Microsoft have teamed up to provide developers with their first TCF hands-on experience. The workshop also highlights case studies from Banco Santander, of an AML-inspired use case protecting data confidentiality, and Chainlink using TCF to improve the integrity of off-chain oracles.

Contributors to the workshop include iExec who provides an implementation of the proxy model for the EEA Off-chain Trusted Compute Specification. This capability enables off-chain trusted execution for various usages including the trusted token application mentioned above. In addition, Kaleido provides Hyperledger Besu* enterprise Ethereum instances. Microsoft provides the Testnet compute infrastructure. Envision Blockchain Solutions provides the UX for EEA Trusted Token, and ConsenSys built the identity, claims and tokens management smart contract infrastructure for the EEA Trusted Reward Token.

Get Started Today

Learn more about using the EEA Off-Chain Trusted Compute Spec to extend blockchain computational trust at: Ecosystem Support for EEA* Trusted Compute Specification v1.0 Improves Blockchain Privacy and Scalability.

Explore and download the Hyperledger Avalon project.

Related Content

Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA) News Release: announcing the Trusted Compute Framework at Devcon 5.

Driving Demand for Enterprise Smart Contracts: using the Trusted Computation Framework and attested oracles via Chainlink.

iExec Demonstrates Confidential Computing Application at Devcon5 with EEA, Intel, ConsenSys & Microsoft: Blockchains deliver computational trust via massive replication. By adding trusted off-chain execution to a blockchain, the performance areas can be greatly improved.

Hyperledger Avalon Wiki: a ledger-independent implementation of the Trusted Compute Specifications published by the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance.

Trusted Compute API Specification: Download the Off-Chain Trusted Compute Specification V1.1and other EEA specifications and architecture stack information.


Michael Reed portraitMichael J Reed is a senior director of Intel’s Blockchain Program Office, where he manages a team responsible for delivering new blockchain ledgers and applications that utilize unique elements of Intel® architecture. Mike has more than 20 years’ experience funding and driving technology ventures related to blockchain, crypto-currency, online payments, RFID, Internet of Things, cloud computing and consumer electronics. He is a member of the EEA and the EEA Trusted Execution Task Force as well as a board member on the Linux Foundation’s Hyperledger Project. Follow Michael on Twitter* and LinkedIn*

Intel provides these materials as-is, with no express or implied warranties.

Intel technologies’ features and benefits depend on system configuration and may require enabled hardware, software or service activation. Performance varies depending on system configuration. No component or product can be absolutely secure. Check with your system manufacturer or retailer or learn more at

Intel and the Intel logo are trademarks of Intel Corporation in the United States and other countries.* Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.

Copyright © Intel Corporation 2019


Chainlink Links with Intel & Hyperledger, Presents New Trusted Computation

Chainlink has announced liking up with Intel, Hyperledger and EntEthAlliance to present a new Trusted Computation Framework that makes use of public blockchains, Chainlink oracles and trusted computing to bring about enterprise blockchain adoption.

The presented paper shared to the blockchain community was ably coauthored by Chainlink team, Eugene Yarmosh, Intel Systems Architect and TCF Technical Lead.

Using blockchain technology, it becomes easy to strengthen scalability and privacy with the help of Chainlink oracles to forward transactional computation off-chain to the Trusted Computation Framework (TCF).

The new design pattern was featured in Intel’s recent article which includes broader advantages as well as the shortcomings of TCF architecture, public blockchains, and how confirmed oracles through Chainlink can ensure bi-directional connectivity between on-chain and off-chain environments.

Chainlink detailed three important use cases in insurance, finance and global trade purposely to showcase how the system works. The introduced TCF solves problems related to blockchain scalability and privacy challenges.

In the finance industry for example, where Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is highly sought after, the TCF offers a completely secure environment that gives room for party to enter into a variety of derivatives contracts by offering off-chain computation purposely to achieve high throughput and lower cost update to contracts before they are finally resolved.

For this purpose, Chainlink oracles works in the area of relaying necessary market data required for execution. It can also forward metadata to repositories and regulators.

In the multi-trillion dollar Insurance industry, the TCF can function well in the realm, concealing execution information needed to process claims and settle the contract.

Chainlink oracles, however, supply necessary data detailing events and determining the outcomes.

As well, in the Global Trade where several components like the regulation, trade financing and importantly, the supply chain are involved, TCF provides computation to achieve global trade contracts that save web data, GPS, IoT among other confidential information.

For Chainlink oracles, the model serves as a reputable bridge to link ERP data, Web and IoT into the smart contract while also serving as a link for sending data out.

Disclaimer: Our writers invest in cryptocurrencies and it is possible the author of this article has investment in any of the digital currencies discussed. Some times author’s presented information may be laced with opinions. Treat articles as mere information and not as financial advice.

Don’t miss any of our crypto news, Join our Telegram | Twitter | Facebook.


Making Sense of Your Multiple Clouds: 5 Takeaways From VMworld

At VMworld 2019, we held an expert round table designed to explore some of the salient topics. Half of the round table participants were Tech Field Day community members, and the remaining half were from Dell Technologies, VMware VeloCloud, and Intel. With ten panelists in total, the discussion was lively — and ranged from highly technical to practical. Here are my top five takeaways from the talk. 1. Ask your cloud providers the hard questions There’s no magic blueprint for picking the right vendor or vendors, and no solution is one-size-fits all. The consensus was clear: … READ MORE