What shortcomings of earlier P2P energy projects like the Brooklyn Microgrid and Power Ledger does this design target?

Brooklyn Microgrid's fully unregulated P2P trading let uncoordinated flows destabilise the grid; Power Ledger's control came from one integrated platform that struggles when endpoint behaviour varies widely.

Two influential real-world P2P energy platforms illustrate the gaps:

• Brooklyn Microgrid — pioneered neighbourhood P2P solar trading, but its trading was fully unregulated: with no coordination of energy flows, supply and demand could swing and the grid fluctuated.
• Power Ledger — added distributed control, but through a single integrated platform adjusting operations from a global viewpoint. When individual endpoints behave very differently, top-down control from one platform struggles to keep everything stable, and its market-clearing latency can interrupt endpoint production.

The response is to (a) push control into each endpoint (EMS autonomy), (b) build coordination into the trading incentives (PoD), and (c) add a low-latency macro intermediary (LEMMP) — rather than relying on either raw markets or one central controller.

Go deeper:

• The Brooklyn Microgrid: blockchain-enabled community power (Power Technology) — How the LO3/Siemens neighbourhood P2P solar pilot actually worked.
• Powerledger — The live blockchain platform for tracking and trading renewable energy.