Incognitee: Privacy Sidechains (Soft Loan Q3'24)
Beneficiary:After rejection of ref 868, Integritee has evaluated the feedback and adapted its request strategy
This proposal is for the upcoming milestone "Test Emergency Interventions on Paseo" and shall cover our work in Q3'24 towards productive privacy sidechains for DOT, KSM, USDT, USDC and others.
187’050 CHF ≃ 208’841.32 USD ≃ 208’841 USDT
- Full Proposal Document
- initial discussion post
- approved previous DOT Treasury retroactive funding (ref 617)
What
Private transactions of DOT, KSM, USDT, USDC
There simply is no other project in the Polkadot ecosystem (an elsewhere in web3!) offering our level of privacy and convenience:
- single click shielding and unshielding
- fee payment in same token
- 1s confirmation time for private transfers (viable for point-of-sale payments)
- horizontally scalable to > 1M tps through sharding of L2
The privacy enhancement by using Incognitee will give you strong privacy on L2 and k-anonymity on L1 which is best for moderate amounts
Please note that Incognitee aims for compliance. We want to bring privacy to the masses, not to protect criminals.
Try it now on our Paseo testnet: https://try.incognitee.io
Soft-Loan
We consider this a soft-loan which we will pay back to the treasury with a fraction of fee revenues which each shard of Incognitee earns as long as the target token is present on the Polkadot Asset Hub and can be spent by the treasury. We commit to sending 30% of our gross fee revenue back to the treasury automatically and regularly until we have repaid the soft-loan plus a one-off premium of 10%.
Context
- NEW brenzi's Incognitee presentation at decoded 2024
- Private Transactions on L2 for all Polkadot Chains | Polkadot Decoded 2023 talk by our CTO brenzi: video recording
- Why Privacy Matters And What Integritee Can Do About it | Polkadot Now India talk by our CTO brenzi: video recording
brenzi also appeared on AAG to explain the previous proposal
Comments (6)
Confirmation Period
3
of 3Decision Period
28 / 28 days
Confirmation Period
0 / 4 days
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (30)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (26)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
Hey @integritee.
I am no stranger to having a great idea and being unable to communicate the crux of it before the listener falls asleep. And I am grateful that you have linked a number of resources for us to evaluate (not just one Google doc written to persuade, as some proponents do :P).
But...
Could you please, in, like, one short paragpraph each, explain:
What (general, high-level) use case this brings to Polkadot?
What (specific) new operation will be possible with this solution?
Why that would not be possible without this, apparently rather complex, solution (for example with Phala/ Manta, or a mixing dapp using Phala/ Manta/ Integritee)
Lucky Friday would like to provide the following feedback from our team members. We have been specifically solicited to provide feedback on this particular referendum, collectively offering it and hope that it will help the proposer(s) of this referendum moving forward. As noted previously, we have voted NAY.
On the positive side, we voted AYE on Ref 997 because it was a nominal ask for work that was performed and paid for retroactively, even if no one was really seeking said solutions. We believe this was the least we could do to support a team that has been in the ecosystem for several years.
On the negative side, however, there are a few points we considered that resulted in this particular outcome on Ref 998:
We still do not see the need for this. There has been little advocacy by the broader community for such a solution. The lack of support for the ref clearly demonstrates this and buttresses our position.
While we commend the team for seeing this as a soft loan, there is no guarantee it will ever be repaid. While it is nice to see that the team is willing to provide 30% of the gross fee revenue plus an additional 10% back to the treasury, network activity and overall lack of demand for such a solution likely means it would take YEARS to pay back the treasury.
As noted (lamented?) by Bill Laboon recently, the treasury has spent 14x its replenishment rate over the last month, and there has been a call for DVs to be more conservative with their votes. Lucky Friday tends to be frugal as an organization, which clearly influences our voting patterns as well. This has us rejecting many referenda that we do not see as useful or adding immediate value to the ecosystem.
Lucky Friday votes as a collective based on the results of our internal voting procedures and enacted on chain via the OpenGov server bot. No single team member is required to provide any feedback about why he or she has voted in a particular direction, although it is highly encouraged and happens often. With respect to our team members' right to anonymity and the private format in which we conduct our votes, we will not be sharing the names of individuals who have chosen to provide said feedback.
We encourage all members of the Polkadot community to join our OpenGov Public Forum on Telegram, and we respectfully ask that all proponents of referenda interact with us here for the sake of transparency: https://t.me/+559tyPSfmGg0NzUx