Eghatha: A Blockchain-Based System to Enhance Disaster Preparedness

Abstract

Natural disasters often strike unexpectedly, leaving thousands of victims and affected individuals each year. Effective disaster preparedness is critical to reducing these consequences and accelerating recovery. This paper presents Eghatha, a blockchain-based decentralized system designed to optimize humanitarian aid delivery during crises. By enabling secure and transparent transfers of donations and relief from donors to beneficiaries, the system enhances trust and operational efficiency. All transactions are immutably recorded and verified on a blockchain network, reducing fraud and misuse while adapting to local contexts. The platform is volunteer-driven, coordinated by civil society organizations with humanitarian expertise, and supported by government agencies involved in disaster response. Eghatha’s design accounts for disaster-related constraints—including limited mobility, varying levels of technological literacy, and resource accessibility—by offering a user-friendly interface, support for local currencies, and integration with locally available technologies. These elements ensure inclusivity for diverse populations. Aligned with Morocco’s “Digital Morocco 2030” strategy, the system contributes to both immediate crisis response and long-term digital transformation. Its scalable architecture and contextual sensitivity position the platform for broader adoption in similarly affected regions worldwide, offering a practical model for ethical, decentralized, and resilient humanitarian logistics.

1. Introduction

On the night of 8 September 2023, a violent earthquake struck the Al Haouz region of Morocco, causing massive destruction and thousands of casualties [1]. Two days later, torrential rains led to the collapse of two dams in the Libyan city of Derna [2], triggering a devastating flood that submerged the city and destroyed large parts of it. The disaster resulted in thousands of deaths and missing persons, with many of the city’s residents losing their loved ones, homes, and livelihoods.

Less than a month after these disasters, a series of earthquakes struck the Herat region in Afghanistan, leaving thousands dead and homes destroyed.

A few months earlier, on 6 February of the same year, a destructive earthquake hit vast areas of Turkey and Syria, causing massive destruction in dozens of cities and villages in both countries, leaving tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands affected [3].

In reality, these are just a few examples of disasters that occur globally with alarming frequency, causing immense tragedy and destruction. This underscores the urgent need for continuous preparedness and rapid response to support affected populations.

The examples above reveal the vast gap between countries’ capabilities to respond rapidly to such events. While some countries have structures and institutions specialized in disaster preparedness and mitigation, others lack resources, are overwhelmed, and struggle to meet basic needs. Even in major countries, the scale of disasters can spiral out of control, and responsible institutions may struggle to manage them effectively. This underscores the urgent need for collective solidarity from everyone, including individuals and civil society organizations.

Looking specifically at the Al Haouz earthquake and Derna flood, for example, the people of Morocco and Libya demonstrated remarkable and unprecedented solidarity, with popular efforts far exceeding official efforts. Citizens mobilized across the country, collecting financial and material aid and organizing hundreds—if not thousands—of convoys to deliver assistance to the affected areas. These efforts were entirely driven by volunteers and non-profit organizations.

This tremendous wave of solidarity showcased the generous and compassionate spirit of people, especially in times of hardship. However, it also highlighted numerous challenges that must be addressed to prevent negative consequences and risks that could be exploited by opportunists.

• Transparency in donations—While people donate generously during times of disaster, they also want assurance that their donations will go the right way. How can they trust that the organizations collecting donations are genuinely distributing them to those in need?
• Fair aid distribution—During the Al Haouz earthquake, for example, some villages received aid multiple times—far beyond their needs—while others were entirely overlooked. Additionally, some locations received surplus supplies they did not need, while struggling with shortages in essential goods that were available elsewhere. This lack of transparency and a coordinated overview of total aid distribution led to inefficiencies.
• Decentralization—Disaster conditions make centralized control over relief and aid management a major challenge, even for strong countries, let alone those with limited resources or institutional capacity.

Therefore, establishing a decentralized system for managing disaster relief and aid is both urgent and highly beneficial. Such a system would help coordinate efforts of all stakeholders, including government agencies, non-profit civil society organizations, and individual volunteers. This system must be transparent, ensuring the tracking of every transaction—whether large or small. Donors would be able to monitor their contributions and verify appropriate usage. The system should also provide a comprehensive view of relief efforts, clearly identifying gaps, who has received aid, and what is still needed. This will foster greater transparency, governance, and optimal aid management, ensuring relief efforts are directed with maximum efficiency.

The objective of this paper is to propose a blockchain-based information system to achieve these goals—helping communities prepare for disasters and provide timely aid to potential victims. Blockchain technology, with its unique features, offers an effective, decentralized approach that allows direct transactions between parties. It guarantees absolute transparency, eliminates manipulation in transaction records, ensures data security, and protects anonymity. Moreover, it enables diverse stakeholders—who may not have prior relationships or trust—to collaborate effectively in relief efforts.

Aligning with Morocco’s Digital Morocco 2030 vision for equitable digital transformation [4], our proposal focuses on Morocco and similar countries in terms of their institutional and societal structures. We particularly address challenges such as low digital literacy in underprivileged and isolated areas—especially regarding blockchain and digital currencies—and the absence of legal frameworks for such systems in many countries around the world.

The paper introduces Eghatha, a platform designed to facilitate multiple methods of collecting and distributing humanitarian donations (both monetary and material) with absolute transparency—from donor to recipient. The system integrates efforts from specialized government agencies, companies, non-profit civil society organizations, and the broader public, including charitable volunteers.

The system uses blockchain technology solely for transaction tracking and contract automation, not as a cryptocurrency. Donations themselves can be in kind or in local currencies, eliminating many complications. In this regard, it is possible to rely on the cooperation of governmental and financial institutions, banks, telecommunications companies, stores, and volunteer non-profit organizations to assist in transferring and transporting donations to on-site distribution points.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the enabling technologies that support the development and deployment of Eghatha. Section 3 reviews related works on blockchain applications in humanitarian aid and disaster management. Section 4 explains the methodology adopted in this study. Section 5 details the proposed Eghatha system, highlighting its architecture and operational workflow. Section 6 outlines the implementation, covering blockchain infrastructure, smart contract logic, mobile interface, and consortium coordination. Section 7 provides an evaluation and comparative analysis of Eghatha against existing platforms. Section 8 presents the results and discussion, examining system robustness, usability, transaction integrity, confidentiality, and governance. Finally, Section 9 concludes the paper by summarizing key contributions and outlining potential avenues for future work, including scalability and identity integration.

2. Background on Enabling Technologies

2.1. Blockchain Technology: Characteristics, Architectures, and Governance Models

Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that enables secure, transparent, and immutable recording of transactions across decentralized networks. Key features include decentralization—eliminating the need for central authorities; peer-to-peer interaction; consensus-driven trust mechanisms; transparency and traceability of transactions; cryptographically enforced data integrity; low operational costs; privacy-preserving identity management; and real-time transaction processing.

Architecturally, blockchains are categorized into three main types [5]: (i) Public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, which offer open access and full transparency. (ii) Private blockchains, like Hyperledger Fabric, restrict participation to verified entities, ensuring confidentiality and controlled access. (iii) Hybrid blockchains, including Dragonchain and XinFin (XDC Network), integrate both public and private components—balancing accessibility with enterprise-grade governance requirements.

From a governance perspective, permissioning models define access control mechanisms that dictate who can read or write on the network [6]. Consortium blockchains—such as those developed using Hyperledger Besu or Kaleido—permit public data visibility while reserving transaction validation and writing privileges for a designated consortium [7]. These configurations enable secure, scalable collaboration supported by defined trust anchors. Notably, hybrid architectures frequently incorporate permissioned governance to support applications in supply chain management, financial platforms, and humanitarian systems like our Eghatha system. This distinction between architectural layering and governance mechanisms provides the flexibility to tailor blockchain deployments for diverse, trust-sensitive ecosystems.

2.2. Smart Contracts

Smart contracts are autonomous, self-executing programs that reside on blockchain platforms and facilitate transactions by enforcing predefined rules [8]. They operate on top of blockchain infrastructure, triggering actions when specified conditions are met. This automation reduces the need for intermediaries and enhances transactional efficiency and trust [9]. Languages commonly used for smart contract development include Solidity (primarily for Ethereum), Vyper, and Rust (notably for platforms like Solana). These languages provide formal structures to ensure deterministic execution and compatibility with decentralized environments.

2.3. Tokens and Ethereum Standards

Tokens are digital representations of assets or utilities managed via blockchain. They are primarily categorized into two types: Fungible Tokens (FTs) and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). FTs—based on the ERC-20 standard—are interchangeable units used for payments, governance, and utility within decentralized applications. NFTs—defined under ERC-721—represent unique digital items like certificates, identities, or creative assets. The ERC-1155 standard introduces multi-token capability, enabling simultaneous support for both fungible and non-fungible assets in a single smart contract. These standards facilitate secure ownership transfer, programmability, and interoperability within blockchain ecosystems [10].

2.4. Decentralized Organizations and Blockchain-Based Funding

Blockchain technologies also support innovative organizational and funding mechanisms. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are self-governing entities built around smart contracts that allow distributed stakeholder participation in decision-making processes, often used for consortium governance and protocol updates [11]. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) serve as decentralized fundraising tools where project-specific tokens are offered in exchange for cryptocurrencies [12]. ICOs enable direct capital acquisition without traditional venture intermediaries and are prevalent across Ethereum-compatible platforms. Other models include Security Token Offerings (STOs) [13], which adhere to regulatory frameworks, and Donation-based mechanisms, often used in humanitarian systems for transparent aid tracking.

3. Related Works

Humanitarian logistics and donation systems continue to face persistent structural and operational challenges. Conventional platforms such as Sahana Eden, ReliefWeb’s coordination dashboard, and proprietary NGO-led infrastructures typically rely on centralized architectures that constrain transparency, hinder interoperability, and limit real-time traceability. For instance, Sahana Eden offers modular disaster management tools, yet its dependence on siloed databases and manual workflows introduces inefficiencies in high-pressure environments [14]. ReliefWeb’s dashboard, while effective for aggregating situational reports, lacks integrated mechanisms for transactional verification or decentralized auditability [15]. These systems, though instrumental in coordination, fall short in enabling secure, multi-actor logistics across fragmented operational landscapes.

Blockchain-based initiatives have introduced promising mechanisms for financial transparency in humanitarian contexts. Platforms such as Giveth and AidCoin utilize smart contracts and public ledgers to enhance donor-side accountability [16,17]. Giveth enables traceable crypto donations and fosters community-driven philanthropy through its modular DApp architecture [16], while AidCoin focuses on transparent charitable contributions via blockchain-based tracking [17]. However, these systems remain largely donor-centric and do not address logistical coordination, dispatch verification, or granular tracking of material aid.

The World Food Programme’s Building Blocks initiative represents a more advanced application of blockchain in humanitarian logistics. Operating within a consortium-based network, it has facilitated over USD 325 million in cash transfers to refugees across Jordan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine [18]. While it improves coordination and reduces duplication, its closed governance model limits adaptability and excludes decentralized consensus mechanisms, thereby constraining transparency and scalability in multi-stakeholder environments.

In recent works, blockchain technology has emerged as a promising solution for managing aid and donations in disaster scenarios, addressing long-standing issues such as fragmentation, lack of transparency, and slow resource allocation. Its decentralized and traceable infrastructure introduces improved trust and operational agility.

Seo et al. [19] proposed a blockchain-based personal donation system that aimed to enhance transparency and encourage donations. The system addresses declining donation rates caused by trust and transparency issues in traditional platforms. It does so by examining factors that influence donation decisions and designing a consortium blockchain-based solution to ensure the transparent operation of donation-receiving groups. However, it lacks mechanisms for in-kind aid traceability. Khairuddin et al. [20] investigated decentralized humanitarian logistics, underscoring blockchain’s potential to bridge communication gaps among relief actors.

Farooq et al. [21] proposed a blockchain-based framework to enhance the transparency and auditability of charity collection processes. The framework addresses common issues of distrust and lack of accountability in traditional charitable organizations by providing an immutable and verifiable ledger of transactions, thereby increasing donor confidence and ensuring funds reach their intended recipients.

Sanjay et al. [22] presented a blockchain-based donation management system aimed at ensuring transparency, security, and privacy. It leveraged blockchain’s immutability to ensure that all transactions are unaltered and fully traceable. This guarantees that donations are allocated directly and transparently to their intended recipients, thereby reinforcing donor trust and streamlining operations. Authors of [21,22] focused on auditability and donor confidence, but their systems were limited to financial donations and did not address usability in low-tech environments.

Ahmed et al. [23] proposed a blockchain-based framework to enhance trust and traceability using distributed ledgers, eKYC, and smart contracts within charity organizations. Key innovations included data privacy filters, randomized transmission to prevent attacks, and a system designed to deliver 100% of donations to beneficiaries. It also introduced “service charity” to enable skill-based giving and aimed to help close the UN SDG funding gap. However, the framework lacked real-time governance and fallback mechanisms for incomplete transactions.

Ankit [24] presented an Ethereum-based donation system for disaster relief, using smart contracts to ensure transparency, security, and trust. Its architecture was validated on Sepolia and analyzed for cost and security, with future potential in optimizing fund allocation.

Sarumathi et al. [25] proposed a blockchain-based donation framework (BECP) to enhance transparency and trust in disaster relief. By leveraging smart contracts and distributed ledgers, it ensures secure, traceable transactions and automates fund disbursement. The system reduces fraud, improves accountability, and streamlines aid delivery, with an evaluation of its architecture, benefits, and challenges.

Our proposed system, Eghatha, was developed in direct response to persistent limitations in existing humanitarian logistics platforms, including the lack of traceability for in-kind aid, limited usability in low-connectivity environments, the absence of real-time governance, and insufficient fallback mechanisms. To address these gaps, Eghatha introduces a unified architecture that integrates decentralized governance, tokenized aid representation via NFT workflows, and multi-signature verification tailored for disaster response. By bridging both financial and logistical dimensions, the system mitigates fragmentation and opacity while enhancing operational transparency. It supports dynamic consortium coordination through role-based access control and emphasizes usability through intuitive interfaces, localized workflows, and multilingual configurations. Resilience features such as offline verification protocols and multi-channel fallback mechanisms further ensure adaptability in constrained environments. These domain-specific innovations position Eghatha as a scalable, inclusive, and ethically grounded solution for next-generation humanitarian aid delivery.

4. Methodology

The development of the Eghatha system followed a structured methodology grounded in design science and informed by prior research in blockchain-based humanitarian logistics. Our approach integrated architectural modeling, protocol selection, and iterative validation to ensure both technical feasibility and operational relevance.

4.1. Design Principles

The system was designed to address key challenges in disaster response: transparency, traceability, and coordination across decentralized actors. Design decisions were informed by literature on blockchain governance [26], token-based aid distribution [27], and multi-signature asset control [28]. Emphasis was placed on modularity to support rapid deployment and interoperability with existing humanitarian workflows [29].

Several design choices were also driven by observations from existing humanitarian platforms, feedback from field experts affiliated with NGOs, and the operational constraints typical of disaster scenarios. These include limited connectivity, urgency of coordination, and the need for privacy-preserving auditability. The system architecture reflects the core characteristics of blockchain technologies—such as decentralization, immutability, and programmable trust—which align well with the expectations of humanitarian practitioners and the logistical realities of crisis environments [30,31].

4.2. Technology Selection

We adopted a hybrid blockchain architecture combining permissioned and public layers to balance scalability with auditability. Clique PoA was selected for internal consortium coordination, while QBFT was used for anchoring to the public chain. This dual-consensus model supports both operational efficiency and external verifiability [32]. Smart contracts were used to encode role-based logic and enforce compliance, drawing on tested patterns from prior decentralized applications [33].

4.3. Development Workflow

The system was built using an iterative prototyping model. Each module was individually designed, implemented, and tested before integration. This modular approach enabled targeted validation and refinement at each stage, ensuring robustness and adaptability.

4.4. Evaluation Strategy

Validation was performed through simulated deployments and scenario walkthroughs, replicating real-world constraints such as intermittent connectivity and multi-agency coordination. Performance metrics—including transaction throughput, latency, and fault tolerance—were measured to assess reliability, responsiveness, and resilience under stress conditions.

5. Proposed Blockchain-Based Relief System

5.1. Key Stakeholders

• Donors: These are individuals, companies, and nonprofit organizations committed to contributing financially to support disaster-affected communities. The success of the system relies on engaging as many citizens and economic actors as possible and encouraging them to maximize contributions. Each donor receives a unique blockchain address, enabling them to transparently send tokens and interact with other system participants.
• Beneficiaries: These are individuals or entities eligible to receive aid, including families, villages, associations, and social projects. Every beneficiary obtains a blockchain address to receive donations directly.
• The “Eghatha” Consortium: This is a collaborative alliance established to coordinate and streamline relief operations during disasters. It unites all stakeholders involved in humanitarian response—including government departments such as health ministries, interior affairs, civil protection, and military forces, alongside NGOs, private sector companies, and volunteer entities—under a unified and decentralized infrastructure. The Eghatha Consortium serves as the operational backbone, coordinating and verifying all activities to maintain trust and governance. This decentralized coordination model reflects successful practices in humanitarian blockchain pilot projects such as in [27]. “Eghatha,” the Arabic word for Relief, embodies the humanitarian mission of this consortium. The consortium’s mission is threefold:

• Operation of the Eghatha Blockchain: Each partner institution runs an independent node, contributing to a secure, transparent, and resilient network that facilitates donation tracking and token flows.
• Management of Exchange Centers: Consortium members operate certified centers. These are outlets where citizens can purchase or redeem tokens using various familiar methods—such as prepaid scratch cards, QR codes, or direct wallet top-ups. These centers serve as the initial gateway to the donation process, transforming local currency into digital relief assets.
• Logistical Aid Delivery: Partners mobilize transport resources and personnel to deliver in-kind assistance and convert digital support into tangible impact on the ground.

This operational model ensures that donations begin at the community level—through accessible token exchanges—and flow with full traceability across all participating entities.

5.2. Technological Infrastructure

At its core, the system is built upon a decentralized blockchain network—the Eghatha Blockchain—managed by the Eghatha Consortium. All consortium members operate independent blockchain nodes to prevent over-centralization and ensure autonomous verification and monitoring of transactions. The Eghatha Blockchain functions as a hybrid network of two layers: (1) Public Layer: Accessible by general users to purchase and transfer relief tokens. (2) Private Layer: Managed by the Eghatha Consortium for network governance and operational integrity.

The blockchain-based platform operates on top of the Eghatha Blockchain through a dual-layer architecture. This layered approach aligns with recommendations for enhancing visibility and trust in humanitarian supply chains using blockchain technology [29]. At the backend, the system relies on smart contracts that form the logic core, ensuring automatic execution of predefined rules. Moreover, “Eghatha tokens” are used to exchange value between actors in the system. These tokens are of two types: (1) Eghatha Fungible Tokens (Eghatha FTs) are used for monetary contributions. (2) Eghatha Non-Fungible Tokens (Eghatha NFTs) represent in-kind donations. This tokenization strategy supports transparent and auditable donation flows, as demonstrated in blockchain-based charity frameworks [21].

At the frontend, Beneficiaries and donors interact through a secure, user-friendly Eghatha Wallet App, which serves both as a transaction portal and communication interface. The app allows users to view their balance, transfer tokens through direct input or QR scanning, monitor project milestones, and receive alerts about new campaigns. Built with mobile-first principles, it ensures accessibility even in remote or underserved areas. Additional modules may include disaster updates and relief news, donation governance tools and impact insights, and transaction history and tracking features.

On the other hand, Eghatha consortium members have access to the Consortium Coordination Platform, which is an internal digital information system that tracks all relief activities, monitors funds, and manages settlements between sales centers and redemption centers.

Figure 1 below provides an overview of the proposed system architecture. The private layer represents the consortium blockchain, comprising multiple members responsible for secure donation tracking, token issuance via exchange centers, and coordinated aid delivery. The public layer shows how donors can purchase tokens from certified exchange centers and transfer them directly to beneficiaries using the mobile wallet application. Upon receiving these tokens, beneficiaries may redeem them at exchange centers for local currency or approved goods. Alternatively, donors can send in-kind donations through designated package handlers. These donations are represented as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and require multi-signature verification from the donor, the package handler, and the beneficiary to confirm successful delivery and receipt.

5.3. End-to-End Donation Workflow

5.3.1. Monetary Donation Workflow Using Eghatha FTs

The smart contract allows consortium members to mint new tokens, which they sell to the public at a fixed, pre-established price, payable in local currency or any other approved form of payment. Eghatha Exchange Centers provide multiple payment methods to accommodate donors using familiar and locally adopted formats—for example, direct token transfer to the buyer’s balance, prepaid scratch cards protected by hidden codes, or other popular local formats. These formats are widely recognized by citizens in Morocco and similar regions due to their widespread use in telecommunications top-ups, making them easily understandable and instantly usable.

The donation process within the Eghatha Consortium starts when a donator contacts an authorized exchange center operated by an Eghatha consortium member to purchase digital relief tokens. Once the donor initiates the transaction, the process unfolds as follows:

• The consortium member mints new tokens and sends them to the donator’s address.
• Once the transaction is completed, the purchased tokens are credited to the buyer’s wallet address.
• The buyer may then transfer tokens to any other address of their choice.
• Finally, the tokens reach the final beneficiary, who may visit a nearby authorized outlet to exchange them for local currency at the original sale price.
• The presence of tokens in the outlet’s wallet serves as proof of payment, allowing the outlet to reclaim the equivalent funds from the consortium’s administration.
• By tracing the full lifecycle—from token issuance to sale to redemption—a comprehensive internal accounting, balancing, and settlement process can be established among consortium members. This transforms the network into a decentralized, non-profit infrastructure for fund distribution. The blockchain serves as a secure and transparent ledger for documenting, tracking, and auditing transactions.

This approach abstracts system complexity from end-users, whether donors or beneficiaries. They interact through a simple mobile application that doubles as a digital wallet. Upon purchasing tokens from an authorized shop, the buyer instantly sees them appear in their wallet, confirming the transaction. With a single button, they can send tokens to another address—either by manual input or scanning a QR code. Once confirmed, the tokens belong solely to the new recipient and cannot be spent by anyone else due to the blockchain’s inherent security.

The recipient may then forward tokens to someone in greater need or visit a local authorized center to redeem them on-site. Redeeming simply involves sending tokens to the center’s wallet and receiving their cash value. The tokens’ presence in the center’s wallet confirms that payment has occurred, allowing reimbursement from the consortium. The consortium, in turn, has already collected matching funds from the entities that issued and sold the tokens. Figure 2 illustrates the flow of fungible tokens.

5.3.2. In-Kind Donation Workflow Using Eghatha NFTs

• Initiating the Donation: The process begins when a donor possesses an in-kind relief package—such as food, clothing, medicine, tents, or other essential supplies—that needs to be transported to a disaster zone. The donor then mints a new Eghatha Non-Fungible Token (NFT) representing the package. This token is personalized with exhaustive details including item descriptions, quantities, estimated value, sizes, colors, and any relevant logistical notes. Next, the donor identifies a nearby member of the Eghatha Consortium who operates in the destination area and agrees to handle the package. Then, the donor initiates a multi-signature transaction to transfer ownership of the newly created NFT to the final beneficiary. The transaction becomes fully validated only after the sequential signing by the donor, the handling consortium member, and the beneficiary. Multi-signature workflows of this nature have proven effective in humanitarian blockchain designs for ensuring accountability and stakeholder trust [26].
• Confirmation by the Handling Partner: Once the handling consortium member receives the physical package and verifies all declared details against the NFT metadata, they sign the blockchain transaction as an acknowledgment of receipt. From this point, the package becomes their operational responsibility.
• Final Verification and Completion: Upon arrival at the destination, the final beneficiary compares the delivered package against the NFT record. If the contents match the declared data, the beneficiary signs the transaction, validating the reception. This digital signature finalizes the process, marking the donation cycle as complete and verified on-chain.
• Handling Incomplete Transactions: If any party fails to sign the transaction, the donation remains incomplete. This signals that something went wrong—whether it is a mismatch, a missing item, or an unverified delivery. Such cases automatically trigger internal mechanisms for verification of all parties and package details, tracing the donation’s journey and responsible handlers and accounting for discrepancies and ensuring corrective actions are taken. This ensures a high level of transparency, trust, and auditability across the Eghatha blockchain system. Figure 3 illustrates the flow of non-fungible tokens.

6. Implementation

6.1. System Components

The Eghatha system is currently at the prototype stage, with its four core architectural components fully developed and integrated as follows:

6.1.1. Blockchain Layer

The Eghatha system is deployed using Hyperledger Besu v24.7.1, an Ethereum-compatible client selected for its modular architecture, enterprise-grade governance features, and support for both public and permissioned networks. This choice enables the implementation of a dual-layer blockchain infrastructure that balances transparency for public stakeholders with secure coordination among consortium members.

The public layer operates under the Clique Proof of Authority (PoA) consensus mechanism. This layer facilitates donor–beneficiary interactions via the Eghatha Wallet App and records token transfers, donation metadata, and redemption events. Clique was selected for its rapid block times, low computational overhead, and suitability for semi-trusted environments, ensuring real-time traceability and public auditability of donation flows.

In parallel, the private layer is governed by the QBFT (Istanbul Byzantine Fault Tolerance) consensus protocol. This layer supports consortium operations, smart contract execution, and internal auditing. QBFT offers deterministic finality, resilience against forks, and a block creation time of approximately two s, making it particularly well-suited for humanitarian contexts where secure, rapid, and verifiable coordination remains essential.

Hyperledger Besu’s native support for hybrid deployments allows seamless integration of these two layers without requiring external bridges or sidechains. Its modular consensus framework enables tailored governance models across operational domains. Furthermore, Besu provides fine-grained permissioning and node-level access control, empowering consortium members to manage roles, validate transactions, and enforce accountability.

The platform also supports private transactions and metadata shielding, enabling selective transparency—public visibility for donors and secure internal records for consortium audits. Full compatibility with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and Solidity ensures interoperability with existing smart contract standards, including ERC-1155, and facilitates integration with widely adopted development tools.

This blockchain foundation ensures that Eghatha remains resilient, ethically governed, and technically scalable, aligning with its mission to deliver transparent and inclusive humanitarian aid through decentralized infrastructure.

6.1.2. Smart Contract Layer

Eghatha’s smart contracts are implemented in Solidity and deployed on the public Hyperledger Besu layer to maximize auditability of donation flows while preserving role-based control. The system adopts the ERC 1155 multi-token standard, modeling a single fungible token (FT) for monetary donations and a set of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) for in-kind packages within one contract. Role management follows a least privilege approach using on-chain access control: consortium members (minters and handlers), exchange centers, and a designated settlement sink address are explicitly registered and can be updated through governed procedures. Token identifiers are partitioned so that a reserved ID (e.g., id = 1) represents the Eghatha FT supply, while unique IDs (id ≥ 10⁶) represent individual in-kind donation NFTs with associated metadata URIs.

For fungible tokens, the mint authority is restricted to the consortium role. Newly minted FTs are delivered directly to the donor’s wallet as part of the mint transaction to prevent custodial risk and ensure immediate end-to-end traceability. Transfers of FT are permissionless: any account may send tokens to any address using a single, unified transfer function (SendFT), which wraps ERC 1155′s safeTransferFrom and adds domain logic based on the recipient’s classification. When the recipient is an exchange center, the transfer is treated as redemption: the exchange center disburses local currency off-chain, and the on-chain state records a redemption event binding the sender, exchange center, amount, timestamp, and an optional reference to the disbursement record. To complete the settlement, exchange centers forward redeemed FTs to the settlement sink address; tokens arriving at this address are irrevocably removed from circulation (by freezing via a black hole holder that cannot initiate outbound transfers). No outbound transfers are permitted from the sink, guaranteeing that the on-chain circulating supply always equals the unredeemed balance and enabling deterministic reconciliation across donors, beneficiaries, and exchange centers.

For non-fungible tokens representing in-kind donations, minting is open to any donor. Each NFT encodes a detailed metadata descriptor (e.g., item count, types, declared value, origin, handling requirements, expiry window, and an optional packaging or shipment identifier) referenced via a content-addressed URI. The minter becomes the initial owner. Ownership change is governed by a three-party, multi-signature workflow that binds transfer of title to proof of custody and proof of delivery. The owner initiates a transfer proposal specifying the handler (a registered consortium member) and the intended beneficiary. Upon physical receipt and verification of the package, the handler approves the proposal; after successful delivery, the beneficiary issues the final approval. Only after the owner, handler, and beneficiary have all approved does the contract execute the ownership transfer atomically. The workflow maintains an explicit state machine (Proposed → HandlerAccepted → Delivered → Completed), enforces timeouts and cancellation paths for stale or disputed transfers, and emits structured events at each transition to support off-chain tracking and audits.

Both FT and NFT flows are instrumented with invariants that preserve financial and logistical integrity. For FT, the sum of all account balances equals the total minted minus the total settled at the sink at all times; redemptions cannot be reversed, and issuance requires an explicit, governed mint. For NFTs, a token cannot be transferred outside the multi-signature process once a proposal is open; attempts to bypass the workflow are rejected at the contract level. Reentrancy guards, role-gated functions, and monotonic nonces on approval messages prevent replay and ordering attacks. All critical actions emit indexed events (MintFT, RedeemFT, SettleFT, ProposeNFTTransfer, HandlerAck, BeneficiaryAck, NFTTransferred), enabling real-time dashboards and reproducible post hoc audits without disclosing sensitive off-chain personal data.

This design preserves open transferability for donors and beneficiaries where appropriate, while hard-coding redemption, settlement, and multi-party verification where trust and compliance are paramount. It delivers a minimal, auditable surface—one unified FT transfer entry point with context-aware semantics and a stateful, three-signature NFT transfer—thereby reducing complexity for users and maximizing verifiability for reviewers and operators.

The following Algorithms 1–4 define some smart contract functions:

Algorithm 1: MintFT

1: function MintFT(issuerAddress, recipientAddress, amount) 2:     if hasMintingPrivileges(issuerAddress) and amount > 0 3:       token ← newFungibleToken 4:       token.recipient ← recipientAddress 5:       token.amount ← amount 6:       updateBalance(recipientAddress, amount) 7:       updateTotalSupply(amount) 8:       emit MintEvent(issuerAddress, recipientAddress, amount, timestamp) 9:       return MintStatus ← Success 10:    else 11:      return MintStatus ← Failure 12:    end if 13: end function

Algorithm 2: MintNFT

1: function MintNFT(issuerAddress, metadataURI) 2:     if validate(metadataURI) = true 3:       tokenId ← generateUniqueTokenId() 4:       nft ← newNFT 5:       nft.tokenId ← tokenId 6:       nft.metadataURI ← metadataURI 7:       nft.owner ← issuerAddress 8:       save nft 9:       emit NFTMintedEvent(tokenId, issuerAddress, metadataURI, timestamp) 10:      return MintStatus ← Success 11:    else 12:      return MintStatus ← Failure 13:    end if 14: end function

Algorithm 3: SendFT

1: function SendFT(senderAddress, recipientAddress, amount) 2:   if hasSufficientBalance(senderAddress, amount) 3:      if recipientAddress = ExchangeCenter 4:       transferFT(senderAddress, ExchangeCenter, amount) 5:       emit RedemptionEvent(senderAddress, ExchangeCenter, amount, timestamp) 6:       markTokensAsRedeemable(amount) 7:     else if recipientAddress = SettlementSink 8:       if senderAddress = ExchangeCenter 9:           transferFT(ExchangeCenter, SettlementSink, amount) 10:          emit SettlementEvent(ExchangeCenter, amount, timestamp) 11:      end if 12:    else 13:      transferFT(senderAddress, recipientAddress, amount) 14:      emit TransferEvent(senderAddress, recipientAddress, amount, timestamp) 15:    end if 16:    return TransferStatus ← Success 17:  else 18:    return TransferStatus ← Failure 19:  end if 20: end function

Algorithm 4: TransferNFTwithMultiSig

1: function TransferNFTwithMultiSig(tokenId, oAddress, hAddress, bAddress) 2:     transferRequest ← createTransferRequest(tokenId, hAddress, bAddress) 3:     transferRequest.status ← Proposed 4:     emit ProposalEvent(tokenId, oAddress, hAddress, bAddress) 5:     if verifyPackageMetadata(tokenId) = true 6:         signTransferRequest(hAddress) 7:         transferRequest.status ← HandlerAccepted 8:         emit HandlerAckEvent(tokenId, oAddress, hAddress, bAddress) 9:     if confirmDelivery(bAddress) = true 10:        signTransferRequest(bAddress) 11:        transferRequest.status ← Delivered 12:        emit BeneficiaryAckEvent(tokenId, oAddress, hAddress, bAddress) 13:    if verifyAllSignatures(transferRequest) = true 14:        transferOwnership(tokenId, bAddress) 15:        transferRequest.status ← Completed 16:        emit NFTTransferredEvent(tokenId, bAddress) 17:    else 18:        transferRequest.status ← Rejected 19:        emit TransferFailedEvent(tokenId) 20:    end if 21:    return TransferStatus ← transferRequest.status 22: end function

Note that oAddress refers to the owner’s blockchain address, hAddress to the handler’s address, and bAddress to the beneficiary’s address.

6.1.3. Eghatha Mobile Application

The Eghatha mobile application serves as both a digital wallet and a decentralized interface to the Eghatha blockchain system. It is designed to operate reliably in resource-constrained environments, particularly in disaster-prone regions where connectivity, device capabilities, and user literacy are often limited. The application emphasizes usability, multilingual accessibility, and low-bandwidth performance, ensuring inclusivity across diverse beneficiary populations.

Developed using the Flutter framework, the app supports cross-platform deployment on Android and iOS devices. It connects with the blockchain and communicates with the Hyperledger Besu public layer through Web3.js endpoints, enabling real-time synchronization of token balances, transaction history, and donation metadata. Backend services are hosted on Firebase, which provides authentication, push notifications, and offline caching to support intermittent connectivity.

Functionally, the app enables users to send and receive both fungible (FT) and non-fungible (NFT) tokens. Transfers are executed through simplified workflows that abstract blockchain complexity. For FT transactions, users may initiate transfers via direct input (wallet address or alias) or QR code scanning. NFT transfers follow an implicit multi-signature protocol: the app guides the donor, handler, and beneficiary through sequential confirmation steps, each recorded as a signed transaction on-chain. The interface enforces role-based permissions and displays contextual prompts to ensure compliance with the underlying smart contract logic.

In addition to wallet functionality, the app provides a dynamic information dashboard. This module aggregates and displays real-time updates on disaster events, relief activities, urgent needs, and verified news feeds. Data is sourced from consortium members and public APIs, and curated for clarity and relevance. Beneficiaries view available donations, claim eligibility, and receive alerts about nearby distribution centers or mobile aid units. Donors monitor the impact of their contributions, track token usage, and receive transparency reports.

Security features include biometric authentication (fingerprint or facial recognition), encrypted local storage, and role-based access control. The app also supports multilingual interfaces and intuitive icon-based navigation to accommodate users with limited literacy or language proficiency.

By combining blockchain-native operations with humanitarian-centric design, the Eghatha mobile application delivers that aid flows are not only transparent and traceable but also accessible and actionable for those most affected by disaster scenarios.

6.1.4. Internal Consortium Coordination Module

The internal consortium coordination module underpins the operational integrity of the Eghatha system by facilitating structured collaboration among participating entities—donors, NGOs, logistics providers, local authorities, and auditing bodies. This component ensures transparent governance, synchronized decision-making, and secure data exchange across the consortium, particularly during high-pressure disaster response scenarios.

Technically, the module is implemented as a permissioned overlay atop the public Hyperledger Besu blockchain, leveraging the Clique Proof-of-Authority (PoA) consensus mechanism to enable fast, deterministic block finality among trusted validators. Each consortium member operates a node with role-specific smart contracts that define their operational scope, voting rights, and data access privileges. These contracts are deployed on a private subnet and periodically anchor state hashes to the public chain for auditability.

Consortium coordination is managed through a modular set of decentralized applications (dApps), built using React and integrated via RESTful APIs and WebSocket channels. These dApps include:

• Governance Dashboard: Enables proposal submission, voting, and resolution tracking. Smart contracts enforce quorum thresholds and time-bound deliberation windows.
• Resource Allocation Interface: Facilitates token-based budgeting, inventory tracking, dispatch scheduling, and inter-member settlement. When tokens are redeemed, the interface records the transaction and triggers the Settlement Engine, which calculates obligations between consortium entities. Settlement is executed via smart contracts that transfer tokens to designated sink addresses, enforce reimbursement workflows, and prevent double-claiming. The interface also integrates geospatial APIs to optimize logistics and supports real-time reconciliation of financial and material flows.
• Compliance and Audit Portal: Allows real-time monitoring of token flows, transaction logs, and beneficiary verification. Supports zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) modules for privacy-preserving audits.
• Messaging and Alerts System: Implements secure, end-to-end encrypted communication using the Matrix protocol, ensuring timely coordination during emergencies.

Data interoperability is achieved through a shared schema registry based on Apache Avro, enabling consistent serialization across heterogeneous systems. Consortium members can publish and subscribe to event streams via Apache Kafka, which supports high-throughput, fault-tolerant messaging for operational updates, donation events, and disaster alerts.

To ensure resilience, the module supports dynamic node reconfiguration, allowing temporary validators (e.g., mobile field units) to join the network during disaster escalation phases. Role-based access control is enforced via JSON Web Tokens (JWT) and OAuth2.0, with identity federation supported through OpenID Connect.

By embedding coordination and settlement logic within a decentralized yet permissioned framework, the Eghatha consortium module balances operational agility with governance rigor. It ensures that aid distribution remains accountable, responsive, and financially reconciled, aligning with the ethical imperatives of humanitarian intervention.

6.2. Test and Validation

The evaluation of the Eghatha system encompassed both technical validation and operational relevance within humanitarian logistics. Given the constraints of real-world disaster scenarios—marked by urgency, resource scarcity, and fragmented coordination—the system underwent assessment through a combination of simulated deployments, performance benchmarks, and qualitative scenario walkthroughs.

Technical Validation was conducted using a controlled testnet environment replicating the hybrid architecture of Hyperledger Besu, with Clique PoA consensus for internal consortium coordination and QBFT for public anchoring. Smart contracts governing token issuance, redemption, and multi-signature approvals were stress-tested under varying transaction loads. The system sustained throughput of approximately 150 transactions per second (TPS) under peak conditions, with block finality reached within 5 s in the permissioned layer. Latency remained within acceptable bounds for real-time coordination, and no critical failures were observed during node reconfiguration or validator rotation.

The Eghatha system was evaluated for its ability to simulate token-based aid distribution, inter-agency coordination, and beneficiary verification. Particular emphasis was placed on the settlement mechanism embedded within the Resource Allocation Interface, which successfully reconciled token flows between consortium members and prevented double-claiming through smart contract enforcement. The system’s modular dApps enabled rapid onboarding of field units and maintained secure communication via the Matrix protocol, even under intermittent connectivity.

Governance and Auditability were assessed through mock deliberation cycles using the Governance Dashboard. Reviewer feedback from domain experts highlighted the clarity of role-based smart contracts and the robustness of the compliance portal, particularly its integration of zero-knowledge proofs for privacy-preserving audits. Anchoring state hashes to the public chain provided verifiable integrity without compromising operational confidentiality.

Table 1. Summary of Technical Validation Metrics.

Metric	Value	Notes
Peak Throughput	~150 TPS 1	Under stress-test conditions
Block Finality (Permissioned)	~5 s	Using Clique PoA consensus
Transaction Latency	<2 s	Real-time coordination
Validator Rotation Stability	No failures observed	During reconfiguration cycles
Smart Contract Execution Rate	100% success	Across token issuance & redemption

¹ Transactions Per Second.

below summarizes the technical validation metrics.

7. Evaluation and Comparative Analysis

The Eghatha system was conceived in response to persistent shortcomings observed across existing humanitarian logistics platforms. Traditional systems such as Sahana Eden, ReliefWeb’s coordination dashboard, and proprietary NGO-led platforms often rely on centralized architectures that limit transparency, hinder interoperability, and constrain real-time traceability. While these platforms have facilitated coordination to varying degrees, their reliance on siloed databases and manual verification processes renders them vulnerable to inefficiencies and data inconsistencies, particularly in high-stakes disaster scenarios.

Recent blockchain-based initiatives, including Giveth and AidCoin, have introduced financial transparency mechanisms into the humanitarian domain. However, these systems predominantly focus on donor-side accountability and lack comprehensive support for logistical operations such as dispatch verification, multi-actor coordination, and granular tracking of aid packages. Even more advanced efforts, such as the World Food Programme’s Building Blocks, operate within closed consortium models and do not fully leverage the potential of decentralized governance or tokenized logistics.

In contrast, Eghatha presents a layered, operations-centric architecture that integrates smart contract governance, tokenized aid representation, and consortium-based coordination. The system employs a multi-signature smart contract workflow to ensure that aid dispatch and receipt are verified by multiple stakeholders, thereby reducing the risk of fraud and duplication. Aid packages are represented using the ERC-1155 token standard, enabling batch-level tracking of heterogeneous items and facilitating real-time traceability across the supply chain. Furthermore, the adoption of the QBFT consensus mechanism allows for fault-tolerant synchronization among consortium members, balancing performance with resilience in volatile environments.

Beyond its technical innovations, Eghatha is designed with explicit consideration for the socio-political and infrastructural disparities that characterize many disaster-prone regions. The system’s mobile-first interface ensures accessibility in low-resource settings, while its offline verification protocols accommodate intermittent connectivity. By embedding equitable governance mechanisms and prioritizing operational transparency, Eghatha addresses not only the logistical but also the ethical dimensions of humanitarian coordination.

Taken together, these design choices position Eghatha as a substantive advancement over existing systems. Its emphasis on decentralized accountability, logistical traceability, and inclusive governance offers a scalable and context-aware model for humanitarian aid distribution. The system’s architecture is not merely a technical solution but a strategic response to the global disparities that continue to challenge effective disaster response.

8. Results and Discussion

8.1. System Robustness and Traceability

The Eghatha blockchain architecture ensures strong traceability across all donation pathways—monetary and in-kind. Whether tokens are transferred, held, or redeemed, every transaction is recorded immutably. Preliminary simulations and transaction walkthroughs demonstrate clear token lifecycle tracking and a high degree of auditability. Multi-signature transactions in in-kind workflows serve as a practical enforcement of accountability.

8.2. Usability and Accessibility

The wallet app interface was designed with low-tech environments in mind. Field testing scenarios showed that users—especially those familiar with prepaid telecom workflows—were able to purchase, send, and redeem tokens without the need for blockchain literacy. QR integration and simplified transfer steps proved intuitive. Future iterations may include multilingual support and voice prompts.

8.3. Transaction Integrity and Fallback Mechanisms

The multi-signature logic successfully captured and flagged incomplete donation cycles. Transactions missing one or more signatures (donor, handler, beneficiary) were automatically routed to verification modules. This helped trace delays and allowed for internal audit trails and accounting reconciliation between consortium members.

8.4. Confidentiality and Anonymity

One of the system’s strong points is its support for anonymous donations. Both donors and beneficiaries can operate without disclosing personal identities, which respects privacy and encourages participation—especially in sensitive or high-risk situations. However, the absence of KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements also presents a potential vulnerability: individuals may attempt to exploit the platform for money laundering or financial obfuscation. This trade-off must be monitored. Future system upgrades may include optional identity attestations or risk-based verification layers, especially for unusually large or frequent transactions.

8.5. Digital Identities as a Lever of Trust

The system can be significantly enhanced through decentralized digital identities (DIDs). These would allow stakeholders to verify themselves without compromising anonymity—offering assurance in sensitive transactions while maintaining privacy. DIDs can also allow donors to associate their tokens with reputational records or impact scores.

8.6. Purpose Integrity and Potential Abuse

The system’s ability to freely transfer tokens offers flexibility, but it opens the possibility for non-donation use—such as informal money transfers between individuals. While technically feasible, this may dilute the humanitarian focus of the platform. Mitigation strategies could involve transaction labeling, behavioral analytics, or setting spending limits for personal transfers.

8.7. Scalability

The architecture, based on distributed smart contracts and consortium-managed nodes, allows horizontal scaling. As more partners join and infrastructure grows, transaction throughput can increase. However, scalability under real crisis conditions (large donor influx or rapid redemption rates) must be validated. Integrating Layer 2 protocols or sharding techniques may be explored to ensure performance remains stable.

8.8. Consortium Coordination Effectiveness

Simulated coordination among consortium members (exchange centers, redemption hubs, logistics handlers) highlighted the importance of decentralized node governance. Redundancy across nodes prevents over-centralization. Exchange centers were effective as starting points for donation engagement, allowing physical or digital access points for token issuance and redemption.

8.9. Governance and Credit-Based Reputation

The Eghatha Consortium serves not only as a coordination entity but as a strategic trust network. To reinforce ethical behavior and operational reliability, consortium members may be required to deposit a collateral as a guarantee of good conduct, especially prior to issuing tokens. This mechanism mirrors blockchain governance practices, such as Ethereum’s validator model, where economic commitment promotes responsible behavior. Members of the consortium may earn performance credits based on their token issuance volume, redemption throughput, and transaction validation leadership, which in turn affect decision-making power, access to resources, and eligibility for incentives. To ensure trust, both credit scores and collateral behaviors may be recorded on-chain and reflected in consortium dashboards or visual trust maps.

9. Conclusions

In crisis scenarios, relief mechanisms must be not only secure and transparent but also immediately usable by vulnerable populations. The Eghatha Consortium system offers a blockchain-powered donation workflow—both monetary and in-kind—that ensures end-to-end accountability through tokenization, multi-signature validation, and traceable smart contracts. Its design allows consortium members to act as decentralized exchange and redemption hubs, backed by governance incentives and collateral-based behavioral guarantees.

A key advantage of this system is its operation with local currencies, avoiding the complexity and volatility often associated with digital assets. The wallet interface is simple and intuitive, built upon widely understood prepaid transaction models. This allows both donors and beneficiaries—regardless of technical literacy—to participate with ease. By shielding technical complexity and focusing on low-tech usability, Eghatha demonstrates real-world viability in disaster relief logistics.

While initial frameworks validate core assumptions, full deployment requires real-world testing under varied disaster conditions. Logistic bottlenecks and identity verification under crisis conditions may require advanced modules. The inclusion of digital identity layers is being explored to enhance beneficiary trust and system integrity. Furthermore, adaptive governance policies within the consortium are under consideration to improve responsiveness and ensure ethical oversight. To expand participation, strategies such as direct token sales, partner-driven distribution, and potential Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are being examined. These could help mobilize donor interest, create sustained engagement, and reinforce the economic viability of the system. Expanding the consortium’s membership base—both geographically and operationally—will be key to amplifying relief coverage and strengthening decentralized collaboration across diverse humanitarian contexts.

Looking forward, the integration of digital identities, adaptive scalability mechanisms, and trust-based consortium governance will enhance impact and resilience. Eghatha represents a step toward ethical, inclusive, and decentralized humanitarian support.