Ontology is Riddled With Issues (Pt. 1)


For some reason, the cryptocurrency community has not covered the fact that the cryptocurrency project, Ontology, is riddled with a number of issues that make it far from a reliable or invest-worthy project.

Ontology’s Blockchain Went ‘Down for Maintenance’ Last Month

On February 5th, 2019, Ontology’s blockchain went down for several hours due to ‘scheduled maintenance’ (which the team did not announce to any of its investors, or individuals ‘using’ the chain).

Below are some screenshots to corroborate this:

Ontology Team’s Explanation

As stated above, the Ontology team stated that the blockchain went down in order to ‘upgrade’ it (this never happens with Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any decentralized chain by the way).

What This Means (And Why it is Significant)

This obviously means a few things:

  1. $ONT is not decentralized in any way, shape or form. If a blockchain can be taken down, then obviously the developers themselves are the only ones running the blockchain.
  2. This exposes the greater problem with a lot of (most) PoS-based chains — which is the fact that they are mostly centralized because they operate via a synchronous model. In other words, if the agreement threshold (67% of nodes) is not reached, a block is not produced. This means if more than 1/3 of the nodes simply fail to validate / operate (like what happened yesterday), then the blockchain stops operating.
  3. Knowing what was stated in #2 is true, its fair to state that $ONT controls >1/3 of the total nodes (47) that are on the network.

To be specific, Ontology’s consensus algorithm is titled ‘VBFT’. You can read more about it here:

View at Medium.com


Ontology Has Been Purposefully Vague About Their Circulating Currency as Well

In a thoroughly researched and widely circulated piece that was published a few months ago, researchers uncovered many of the discrepancies between the circulating currency amount that Ontology was reporting and the reality of what was actually available on the blockchain network:

View at Medium.com

Ontology Has Lied About its Connections to NEO/Antshares

One of the more prominent projects to ever launch on the $NEO blockchain is Ontology. There was a substantial amount of hype that surrounded the project before, during and following its launch.

However, in the midst of that hype were speculations that the $NEO team itself had actually abandoned the $NEO project in favor of development on $ONT (Ontology). While there are no obvious, external announcements that suggest that such an event transpired, there are a few crucial clues that show that $NEO’s involvement in the project extends considerably further than what many originally thought.

For example, the project lead for $ONT was and is also an integral part of $NEO’s team. The name of the individual in question is Li Jun (Jun Li). [38] According to Li Jun’s LinkedIn profile, he is the, “Founder of Ontology (ont.io) & Co-founder of Onchain (Blockchain Technology).” [39]

However, this stands in direct contrast to the information that was posted in the Antshares ANN thread, which listed Li Jun as an ‘Architect’ with the team under a section listed ‘Full Time Team Members’.

In addition, it is also worth reiterating that Onchain is a subsidiary of Antshares (the former iteration of $NEO). So, there is no way or reason to extricate Li Jun’s involvement with $NEO and given the fact that he is tied into both $ONT and $NEO in such an intrinsic manner, there is more than enough evidence to insist that $ONT is a $NEO project.

In addition, the heavy involvement of Da Hongfei, whom is still listed as the de facto lead on the $NEO project also adds credence to the idea that $ONT is indeed a subsidiary of $NEO.

Another team member from Antshares/$NEO that is listed directly on the website is an individual by the name of ‘Wentao Yang’.

On the ANN thread for $NEO, Wentao Yang was also named there as well. In fact, he is even presented with the exact same profile picture on that thread as well. [43]

Given this information, it must be determined that $NEO, or more specifically, Da Hongfei, again lied to the public in a recent AMA (Ask-Me-Anything) where investors and other members of the $NEO community received an opportunity to ask questions of their own about $NEO, Da Hongfei himself or other projects related to $NEO and its blockchain. [41]

In this AMA, Da Hongfei stated that,

“There is almost n0 personnel transfer between NEO Foundation/NGD/NGC and Onchain/Ontology. I said ‘almost n0’ because the only exception is Johnson Zhao used to work for Onchain and transferred to NGD.”

Even More Troubling Information About Wentao Yang

There’s even more troubling information about some of the purported board members for Ontology. In particular, Wentao Yang’s presence on the project raises a significant number of red flags, which will be described in detail below:

  • There is no mention of Wentao Yang’s involvement on the Antshares project, despite the fact that he is clearly and unequivocally listed as part of the Business Development team. (possibly post the photos)
  • The same picture was used for both the Antshares and Ontology websites. The only difference is that the picture on the Ontology website is in black and white. Using the same picture seems a bit unusual when considering that there had been 2+ years that had elapsed since the original photo of Wengtao Yang was posted on the Antshares ANN thread.
  • For some reason, all other mentions/related posts concerning Wengtao Yang’s involvement with Antshares or $NEO have been virtually wiped from the internet as far as $NEO/Antshares controlled resources are concerned.
  • The LinkedIn page for Wentao Yang makes absolutely no mention of his involvement with Antshares, which is strange considering the fact that he was listed as someone actively involved in business development with $NEO on the ANN thread, as mentioned previously.

Antshares/Onchain Relationship Shelled Out in Greater Detail

Possibly the biggest secret that Antshares/NEO has been hiding from the general public is the fact that Antshares is the entity that started Onchain and they created Onchain with the purpose of having a platform that they could manage and use to invest in other projects (i.e., the ICOs that they’ve been launching on their chain) in the space.

There is no problem with this at face value. However, when considering the fact that $NEO/Antshares have effectively attempted to create an impression that the two entities are mutually distinct, this is a relationship that must be looked at in greater detail.

Specifically, in the case of Ontology, a platform that the $NEO team has notoriously backed, they have tried to create a semblance of separation that simply is not there.


Below is a live picture of Ontology:




One comment on “Ontology is Riddled With Issues (Pt. 1)

  1. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several oof your posts.
    A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very troublesome to
    inform the truth nevertheless I will certainly come back again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.