“No liability exists for the completion of this work” is an absolutely bananas thing to put in a proposal.

Imo vote no, unless there’s an option to vote yes with no liability to actually distribute the funds. 

The summary of the related projects is not right. FUDGE is already capable of all of that (Rewinding is not exposed yet, but just as I am not sure what the implications are for the DB, and RPCs would need to somebody to clone the client and create an RPC builder) and further more there is definitely no need for a relay-chain node in FUDGE. 

What research did you do to come to the conclusion of your summary? 

The wrong summary bugs me, but I am not against having this, as this seems to be a nice user friendly testing externsion for a runtime node. Although, the need to have the API being part of a real runtime configuration seems a bit scary, but if hidden behind features...

Could you explain in more detail how this works?
   * Is the node a real network node that needs to sync up against the chain?
   * Can you use this without having to start a real node? 
   * How is the origin if it is not a signed one constructed? 
       * Is there a seperate transaction pool, etc.?


The summary of the related projects is not right. FUDGE is already capable of all of that (Rewinding is not exposed yet, but just as I am not sure what the implications are for the DB, and RPCs would need to somebody to clone the client and create an RPC builder) and further more there is definitely no need for a relay-chain node in FUDGE. 

What research did you do to come to the conclusion of your summary? 

The wrong summary bugs me, but I am not against having this, as this seems to be a nice user friendly cli. Although, the need to have the API being part of a real runtime configuration seems a bit scary.

Could you explain in more detail how this works?
   * Is the node a real network node that needs to sync up against the chain?
   * Can you use this without having to start a real node? 
   * How is the origin if it is not a signed one constructed? 
       * Is there a seperate transaction pool, etc.?


This line is pretty bad: "The completion of these milestones is not a counterpart for the DOTs". There absolutely should be accountability on Treasury proposals.

- Would it be possible to flesh out what topics/scenarios will be covered in the documentation more completely? IMO, there should be a clear outline of objectives and what success looks like.

- Why is filming equipment needed at all for Youtube guides/demos?

- In your proposal you mention documentation as one line-item and then include it again in the general maintenance line-item. Can you clarify the differences here?

![](https://i.imgur.com/UcOTNlE.png)

- You list 5 people on your team but stipulate only 1/2 of an FTE will be required for this effort. Who will be executing on this proposal exactly?

- What bug fixes and code optimizations are planned? I don't see any open issues on Github.

- Do you have a project board for this effort? 

One follow-up, you quoted $15k for maintenance and documentation in your Web3 Foundation grant proposal but quote $30k in this proposal. [https://github.com/Doordashcon/Grants-Program/blob/af90e7272a5258e078721dc2d597d5541533c8a5/applications/polytope-simnode.md ](https://github.com/Doordashcon/Grants-Program/blob/af90e7272a5258e078721dc2d597d5541533c8a5/applications/polytope-simnode.md ) can you explain the discrepancy?

Hi there!👋🏿

Please consider adding an on-chain identity to the proponent's address so that it is clearer to the community which entity/organisation/individual is submitting this on-chain Treasury proposal.

Thank you! 🙏🏿

Seconded. Thanks for pointing this out [@anaelleltd](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/user/anaelleltd)!

We appreciate the feedback, this is an incomplete submission. We will revise all that has been pointed out with a more detailed document.

Hello everyone

We'd like to once again thank the community and councillors for the valuable feedback, improvements have been made to the proposal document, please review :)

Good day Council members and Community, the Polytope Labs team would like to present the completion of our first treasury proposal regarding the continuous development and improvement financing of sc-simnode, we once again thank the community and council for their support , please view the delivery doc [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dQ\_6DVpaBc1gXKacoNeAdVklMRdP1vpZoWxXcRdyRqo/edit?usp=sharing)

Happy to see alternative approaches on solving the Substrate testing problem but given you are comparing it with Chopsticks, I will like to add few more ticks to it.

Substrate supports rewind block,  runtime upgrade & migration, and submit extrinsics from any origin. On top of that, it also supports XCM testing between multiple chains, dry run transactions and XCM, arbitrary storage modification and many more features.

SImnode supports fast-forward and rewinding blocks, as well as simulating runtime upgrades and migrations. Simnode is a full node environment, so you can simulate transactions from any origin. 

We don't support xcm operations as there's xcm-simulator for that.

Hello everyone,

There is [demand](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/issues/13165) for a testing framework that simulate transactions as it would happen on-chain, this can give valuable insight before making any major change to the runtime, sc-simnode does just that and more. Developed and maintained by Polytope Labs, a blockchain research and development lab.

We are seeking financing for the continuous development and improvement of sc-simnode.

You can find all the details of the proposal here: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x8lFHv1LZTr0y_Ifn8YzxirNftabaH0dWzzt9zSv6ik/edit#heading=h.tcq61mlmv7q4](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x8lFHv1LZTr0y_Ifn8YzxirNftabaH0dWzzt9zSv6ik/edit#heading=h.tcq61mlmv7q4)

Thank you for reading

Jesse Chejieh

Approve a proposal. At a later time, the proposal will be allocated to the beneficiary
and the original deposit will be returned.

May only be called from `T::ApproveOrigin`.

# <weight>
- Complexity: O(1).
- DbReads: `Proposals`, `Approvals`
- DbWrite: `Approvals`
# </weight>

#378 Treasury proposal: sc-simnode continuous development and improvement financing