Grant Application "Wira Wallet Verifiable-Traceability"

[SaulChoque]

Project Abstract

Please replace these instructions with a brief description of your project summarising key points (1-2 paragraphs).

If your application is a follow-up to a previous grant, please mention which one in the first line of the abstract and include a link to previous pull requests if applicable.

Grant level

• Level 1: Up to $10,000, 2 approvals
• Level 2: Up to $30,000, 3 approvals
• Level 3: Unlimited, 5 approvals (for >$100k: Web3 Foundation Council approval)

Application Checklist

• The application template has been copied and aptly renamed (project_name.md).
• I have read the application guidelines.
• Payment details have been provided (Polkadot AssetHub (USDC & DOT) address in the application and bank details via email, if applicable).
• I understand that an agreed upon percentage of each milestone will be paid in vested DOT, to the Polkadot address listed in the application.
• I am aware that, in order to receive a grant, I (and the entity I represent) have to successfully complete a KYC/KYB check.
• The software delivered for this grant will be released under an open-source license specified in the application.
• The initial PR contains only one commit (squash and force-push if needed).
• The grant will only be announced once the first milestone has been accepted (see the announcement guidelines).
• I prefer the discussion of this application to take place in a private Element/Matrix channel. My username is: @_______:matrix.org (change the homeserver if you use a different one)

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot: Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution. Please submit the following text as a separate comment:

---

I have read and hereby sign the Contributor License Agreement.

---

_{You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request}

[diogo-w3f]

Hi team, thanks for the submission. After reading the application alongside the W3F template, I have a few points and questions. I’ve grouped them for clarity:

Template compliance (must-fix)

• Payment Details: Please add the DOT address for payment.

• Add the section “What your project is not”: The Project Details section should explicitly list out-of-scope features or future ideas that will not be delivered.

• Add Future Plans section: Please add the missing ## Future Plans header and address long-term maintenance, promotion, and funding.

• Previous W3F grants: Under “Team’s experience” explicitly state whether anyone on the team has already received W3F funding; if none, please say “None”.

Clarification & technical questions

• Do you know KILT protocol? How does your DID layer differ from / integrate with KILT?
• I'm trying to understand how human oracles & dispute resolution will work in the system. Can you explain more on how people will be trusted in the system? Furthermore, how this differ from prediction markets?
• The diagrams are in Spanish and mention Polygon. It would be nice to fix.
• Zero-Knowledge Proofs are mentioned in one use case, what kind of ZK are you planning to use, can you tell me more about that?
• Link to “Tu Voto Decide”. Which parts of that codebase are reused or open-sourced for this grant?
• Moonbeam / EVM vs Substrate – Is the plan to stay on an EVM parachain or migrate to native Rust pallets (or even Ink! Smart Contracts)?

Market demand & potential other funding sources

• Which concrete customers, partners, or regulators have confirmed a need for “Human Oracles”? Please share user studies, pilot feedback, or signed letters of intent.
• Have you received (or applied for) grants, accelerators, or treasury proposals from Polygon, Arbitrum, Moonbeam, or others for the same deliverables? If yes, list the program, amount, status, and how the scope differs from this proposal.
• Beyond the three pilots (electoral, agriculture, mining), what concrete adoption pathway or paying customer pipeline do you have?
• Which existing oracle or DID projects (e.g. Chainlink, KILT, Litentry, etc.) address similar problems? Why is a new network necessary?
• What revenue or token-economic model will keep the verifier network alive once grant funding ends?

Answering these questions will help reviewers gauge both alignment with W3F’s funding guidelines and the real-world viability of the project.
Thanks in advance for the clarifications!

[semuelle]

Pinging @SaulChoque. Please also follow the steps to sign the CLA as described above.

[diogo-w3f]

@SaulChoque please note that the grants guidelines have recently changed
. It would be helpful if you could provide information showing how your project fits what we’re looking for, and how it avoids the categories listed under What Doesn’t Fit Our Program.