Add PrivaDEX milestones 1, 2, 3, 4

[kapilsinha]

Milestone Delivery Checklist

• The milestone-delivery-template.md has been copied and updated.
• The invoice form 📝 has been filled out for this milestone.
• This pull request is being made by the same account as the accepted application.
• In case of acceptance, the payment will be transferred to the BTC/ETH or Polkadot/Kusama (aUSD/USDT) payment address provided in the application.
• The delivery is according to the Guidelines for Milestone Deliverables.

Link to the application pull request: w3f/Grants-Program#1398

[kapilsinha]

Checking in since it's been over a week since my submission: any preliminary feedback (or ETA) @semuelle ?

[semuelle]

Hi @kapilsinha. Sorry for the lack of response here. I have now reviewed and accepted M1 and half of M2. Since it's a relatively complex project, it takes a bit longer to verify each deliverable.

So far everything looks very good. You included plenty of useful documentation that, so far, has done its job. I couldn't figure out how token pairs and DEXs are matched from the database and why the path between DAI and USDT in my graph requires seven hops. But I'll keep evaluating and come back to it if needed. Thanks for your patience.

[kapilsinha]

No worries, thanks for the update. Good to see that that the review process is so thorough! By the way, I just updated the milestone 4 submission to include the Medium article/blog

[semuelle]

@kapilsinha Can you share why you chose to use SSPL instead of GPLv3 or rather AGPL? There seems to be concern that the license is unenforceable (1, 2).

[kapilsinha]

@kapilsinha Can you share why you chose to use SSPL instead of GPLv3 or rather AGPL? There seems to be concern that the license is unenforceable (1, 2).

GPLv3 doesn’t define limitations for SaaS, so AGPL and SSPL are more accurate for this use case. Between the two, I’m more comfortable with SSPL for largely the same reasons that MongoDB and Elasticsearch recently transitioned to SSPL - provide a “workable incentive for cloud [service] providers to share with the rest of the community.” AGPL doesn’t really provide this.
The same article you linked also mentions unenforceability of AGPL; their qualm seems to be with the detection of SaaS usage more than the stipulations of the specific license. This is inherent to trying to “close the SaaS loophole”, but I think we should still make some effort to address the “service” case when it’s so relevant to the code. Ultimately though I’m not a licensing lawyer so I can’t personally speak to the enforceability; I am looking to recent precedent as the next best option. Happy to discuss more offline - please fee free to telegram message me at @kapilsinha1

[kapilsinha]

@semuelle one last addition, I've added the 3rd (and final) milestone. At this point you have all the context on the code, so it would be great if you could review that one too!

[semuelle]

Thanks for the reply and the update. I will try and tackle it by the end of the week.

[semuelle]

Just to give a quick update: M3 looks good, I just haven't been able to compile the contracts yet. Which version of cargo-contract did you use?

[kapilsinha]

Just to give a quick update: M3 looks good, I just haven't been able to compile the contracts yet. Which version of cargo-contract did you use?

I don’t have access to my Linux machine, which is “highly recommended” for compiling Phat Contract. But on my Mac it is cargo-contract 1.5.0-unknown-x86_64-apple-darwin.

[semuelle]

Hey @kapilsinha. I think the issue was that this. If so, that should definitely be documented somewhere.

[kapilsinha]

Hey @kapilsinha. I think the issue was that this. If so, that should definitely be documented somewhere.

@semuelle Ah got it. I do mention that “cdylib” is required in the Docker testing guide: https://github.com/kapilsinha/privadex/tree/b6dff270aa49c83a5bfa86fefbc7e83895631625/dex_aggregator/executor#docker-testing-guide
Happy to place it elsewhere to make it more visible.

[semuelle]

Wow, it's right there. It took me two days to figure it out. My bad.

I am happy to report that all milestones are accepted (see evaluation notes here, here, here and here). I found some minor issues here and there (for example, the contracts didn't compile because clang and binaryen were missing from the Docker image; there are a bunch of hard-coded values in the UI repo; very little inline documentation overall). However, it's a pretty impressive project and I am happy to approve it.

I will forward your invoices for processing.

[github-actions]

Congratulations on completing the first milestone of this grant! As part of the Grants Program, we want to help grant recipients acknowledge their grants publicly. To that end, we’ve created a badge for projects that successfully deliver their first milestone. Please use the badge only in reference to the work that has been completed as part of this grant, so please do not display it on your team or project's homepage unless accompanied by a short description of the grant. Furthermore, you're now welcome to announce the grant publicly. Please remember to observe the foundation’s guidelines in doing so. If you haven't already, reach out to [email protected] for feedback on your announcement and cross-promotion.

Thank you for your contribution, and good luck! If you have any remaining milestone, let us know if you encounter any delays by leaving a comment on the application PR or submitting an amendment.

[github-actions]

We noticed that this is the last milestone of your project. Congratulations on completing your grant!

So, where to from here? The main goal of the W3F grants program is to support research as well as early-stage technical projects. So, if your project still falls under one of those categories, you might want to apply for a follow-up grant. Depending on your goals and project status, there are other support programs in our ecosystem that might be better suited as the next step, for example:

Project with a Business Case/Token: Substrate Builders Program or VC Funding

Common Good Projects: Treasury Funding

For a more comprehensive list, see our Alternative Funding page.
Let us know if you have any questions regarding the above. We are more than happy to point you to additional resources and help you determine the best course of action.

[kapilsinha]

@semuelle thanks for the thorough review!

[semuelle]

@kapilsinha It looks like 'From' and 'Bill to' in your invoices is reversed. Could you also specify the VAT amount?

[semuelle]

@kapilsinha1:matrix.org?

[kapilsinha]

@kapilsinha1:matrix.org?

kapils on Matrix

[RouvenP]

hi @kapilsinha we transferred the payments for M1-4 today.