This treasury proposal aims to retro-actively cover the first 28 person days of completed work on implementing privacy sidechains for any substrate based chain. This benefits Polkadot and Kusama relaychains but also all their parachains and even solochains - without the need to change a single thing in their runtimes!

[Detailed Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ID9ZqTU-ukY1P2lDZi6P5wKwTMAC1X-hsk-67k07p_0/edit?usp=sharing) asking for **39’961 USD**

[Previous Discussion Thread](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1739)

[Blog post about why privacy matters and our longer term vision](https://medium.com/integritee/a-privacy-sidechain-for-all-polkadot-kusama-chains-1bb52dc9b0d7)

[brenzi's presentation at Polkadot Now India 2023 [video, 12min]](https://youtu.be/7he0Uqe9jps) brenzi will present this tech at decoded '23 as well

## Why should the treasury fund this?

Our offering is non-excludable, meaning we can’t limit this offering only to paying customers. So there is a free-rider issue at play: Once we release our privacy-sidechain solution, everyone can use the code to run their own sidechains, even multiple sidechains for a single parachain are possible and user fees are paid in the parachains’ native token, not TEER. Integritee invests in this important use case but will be met by competitors who just fork the code as soon as the business case works out. This is a very good thing for decentralization - but must be financed.

So, the question is not a generic “*shall parachain teams get funding from the Treasury to build what they would build with VC funds anyway?*”. What we offer is not a product on our parachain itself which we charge TEER for (see fee details in proposal document): We offer an L2 solution for anyone to deploy - anywhere. The question we’re asking with this proposal is, therefore: “**Do you want this privacy product to be available by the end of the year for Polkadot, Kusama and their parachains, or not?**”

This treasury proposal aims to retro-actively cover the first 28 person days of completed work on implementing privacy sidechains for any substrate based chain. This benefits Polkadot and Kusama relaychains but also all their parachains and even solochains - without the need to change a single thing in their runtimes!

[Detailed Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ID9ZqTU-ukY1P2lDZi6P5wKwTMAC1X-hsk-67k07p_0/edit?usp=sharing)

[Previous Discussion Thread](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1739)

[Blog post about why privacy matters and our longer term vision](https://medium.com/integritee/a-privacy-sidechain-for-all-polkadot-kusama-chains-1bb52dc9b0d7)

[brenzi's presentation at Polkadot Now India 2023 [video, 12min]](https://youtu.be/7he0Uqe9jps) brenzi will present this tech at decoded '23 as well

## Why should the treasury fund this?

Our offering is non-excludable, meaning we can’t limit this offering only to paying customers. So there is a free-rider issue at play: Once we release our privacy-sidechain solution, everyone can use the code to run their own sidechains, even multiple sidechains for a single parachain are possible and user fees are paid in the parachains’ native token, not TEER. Integritee invests in this important use case but will be met by competitors who just fork the code as soon as the business case works out. This is a very good thing for decentralization - but must be financed.

So, the question is not a generic “shall parachain teams get funding from the Treasury to build what they would build with VC funds anyway?”. What we offer is not a product on our parachain itself which we charge TEER for (see fee details in proposal document): We offer an L2 solution for anyone to deploy - anywhere. The question we’re asking with this proposal is, therefore: “**Do you want this privacy product to be available by the end of the year for Polkadot, Kusama and their parachains, or not?**”

Privacy Sidechains for all Substrate- Based Chains

This treasury proposal aims to retro-actively cover the first 28 person days of completed work on implementing privacy sidechains for any substrate based chain. This benefits Polkadot and Kusama relaychains but also all their parachains and even solochains - without the need to change a single thing in their runtimes!

[Previous Discussion Thread](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1739)

[Detailed Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ID9ZqTU-ukY1P2lDZi6P5wKwTMAC1X-hsk-67k07p_0/edit?usp=sharing)

[Blog post about why privacy matters and our longer term vision](https://medium.com/integritee/a-privacy-sidechain-for-all-polkadot-kusama-chains-1bb52dc9b0d7)

[brenzi's presentation at Polkadot Now India 2023 [video, 12min]](https://youtu.be/7he0Uqe9jps) brenzi will present this tech at decoded '23 as well

## Why should the treasury fund this?

Our offering is non-excludable, meaning we can’t limit this offering only to paying customers. So there is a free-rider issue at play: Once we release our privacy-sidechain solution, everyone can use the code to run their own sidechains, even multiple sidechains for a single parachain are possible and user fees are paid in the parachains’ native token, not TEER. Integritee invests in this important use case but will be met by competitors who just fork the code as soon as the business case works out. This is a very good thing for decentralization - but must be financed.

So, the question is not a generic “shall parachain teams get funding from the Treasury to build what they would build with VC funds anyway?”. What we offer is not a product on our parachain itself which we charge TEER for (see fee details in proposal document): We offer an L2 solution for anyone to deploy - anywhere. The question we’re asking with this proposal is, therefore: “**Do you want this privacy product to be available by the end of the year for Polkadot, Kusama and their parachains, or not?**”

This treasury proposal aims to retro-actively cover the first 28 person days of completed work on implementing privacy sidechains for any substrate based chain. This benefits Polkadot and Kusama relaychains but also all their parachains and even solochains - without the need to change a single thing in their runtimes!

[Previous Discussion Thread](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1739)

[Detailed Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ID9ZqTU-ukY1P2lDZi6P5wKwTMAC1X-hsk-67k07p_0/edit?usp=sharing)

[Blog post about why privacy matters and our longer term vision](https://medium.com/integritee/a-privacy-sidechain-for-all-polkadot-kusama-chains-1bb52dc9b0d7)

[brenzi's presentation at Polkadot Now India 2023 [video, 12min]](https://youtu.be/7he0Uqe9jps) brenzi will present this tech at decoded '23 as well


Propose and approve a spend of treasury funds.

- `origin`: Must be `SpendOrigin` with the `Success` value being at least `amount`.
- `amount`: The amount to be transferred from the treasury to the `beneficiary`.
- `beneficiary`: The destination account for the transfer.

NOTE: For record-keeping purposes, the proposer is deemed to be equivalent to the
beneficiary.



- This treasury proposal aims to retro-actively cover the first 28 person days of completed work on implementing privacy sidechains for any substrate based chain.
- This benefits Polkadot and Kusama relaychains but also all their parachains and even solochains - without the need to change a single thing in their runtimes.
- Integritee is asking for **39’961 USD** to make the privacy product available by the end of the year.
- The question asked with this proposal is: “Do you want this privacy product to be available by the end of the year for Polkadot, Kusama and their parachains, or not?”

#17 Privacy Sidechains for all Substrate- Based Chains

No Active Proposals