Update QSTN.md

[qstnus]

Project Abstract

QSTN is a Web3 survey marketplace where businesses fund surveys, reward participants, and uphold user privacy through our data wallet-driven profiles.

Grant [level] 1

• 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 (bank details via email or Polkadot (USDC & USDT) or BTC address in the application).
• 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 All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

[qstnus]

I have read and hereby sign the Contributor License Agreement.

[keeganquigley]

For reference, see here w3f/Grant-Milestone-Delivery#1017 (comment)

[keeganquigley]

Thanks for the update @qstnus so just to make sure I understand correctly:

• You are extending the timeline 3 months and aiming to deliver by end of December?
• Is all the rest of the info staying the same? For example, you mentioned the switch to traditional email OAuth instead of login with Polkadot SS58 accounts. Are you intending to implement functionality with wallets this time around?
• Seeing as it's been a year, are all team members the same?
• Is the legal entity and address still the same? I noticed that the application says QSTN, LLC while your website says @2023 Sink

[qstnus]

Hello @keeganquigley,

We are keeping the same proposal as outlined in our original application. Below are the answers to your question!

1. Yes we are extending until December (we should be done before this)

2. The information is staying the same - OAuth works on Moonbeam because we use Safe Global for the vault mechanism (EVM compatible), with Polkadot users need Polkadot JS wallet to interact with the pallet and custody funds.

3. The members are the same

4. The legal entity and address is the same (Sink is the name of our lead developer's contracting firm)

[keeganquigley]

Thanks for the quick response @qstnus everything looks good except for regarding your second point:

• I understand the SAFE vault was needed for the EVM implementation "due to compatibility", but wouldn't this not be needed anymore for the native substrate version? Also, is the SAFE vault still non-custodial? Is this a smart contract? If it is to be included, this would also need to be updated in the application.

[qstnus]

Hello @keeganquigley,

SAFE is a non-custodial solution by Consensys (https://safe.global/), it facilitates wallet creation utilizing email addresses. For redeeming Polkadot rewards, users must link their JS wallets and claim rewards directly to their wallets.

Currently, SAFE lacks support for Polkadot. Given this, we will enable users to interact directly with the pallet, easing the reward redemption process post-survey completion.

EVM Scenario:
Upon signing up using an email address, EVM rewards are transferred to the user's SAFE vault.

Substrate Scenario:
Users sign up with an email address and connect their wallet, which allows for the withdrawal of DOT rewards.

[keeganquigley]

Thanks @qstnus for the updates. I will go ahead and mark the amendment as ready for review and ping the rest of the committee. Personally, I'm not willing to support it at this point as we've already waited a year for it, and I'm still not seeing the requested changes to the application. I'm not convinced about the technical aspects of it or whether it would be delivered in good faith, since Moonbeam is your team's main focus right now.

Also, since you already seem to have an established revenue model via subscriptions, whereas we mostly focus on early-stage PoCs providing common good software for the community.

[qstnus]

Hello @keeganquigley,

I appreciate your feedback. I wish to clarify that various restructurings, both within our product and team dynamics, significantly contributed to the delay in the grant's delivery.

Here are some notable milestones we've achieved since our grant request:

1. Secured a position in Outlier Venture's NEAR Base Camp, successfully closing our pre-seed round.
2. Developed a data wallet feature, now generating zero-knowledge proofs upon survey completion.
3. Integrated AI to assist businesses in crafting surveys and evaluating authenticity of responses through a "credibility" score.
4. Garnered preliminary interest from notable entities like NYU, Estée Lauder, and L'Oréal for potential test partnerships, in collaboration with the NEAR Foundation.
5. Were honored with acceptance into the Polkadot Blockchain Academy, although a visit was precluded due to visa constraints.

Press:
Outlier Ventures -
https://outlierventures.io/article/near-foundation-and-outlier-ventures-announce-the-first-near-base-camp-accelerator-cohort/

Parsiq -
https://hub.parsiq.net/unicornization

Mastercard Demo Day -
https://youtu.be/TkfHLgsBxiE

Mintbase -
https://blog.mintbase.xyz/wrapping-up-mintbases-demo-day-f13fd192c8fc

CoinDesk -
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-outlook-2023-regulation-web3-daos-stablecoins-and-jobs/

[keeganquigley]

Thanks @qstnus but again, these restructurings and findings would need to be integrated into the application itself. Along with the addition of the SAFE vault and any other changes. We understand that projects get delayed, but no amendments were ever filed to document these changes, despite me asking multiple times.

[qstnus]

Hello @keeganquigley,

How do you suggest we proceed? I am willing to add these revisions or should we leave as is? Thanks!

[qstnus]

Hello @keeganquigley,

In addition, our original application says 15 months, which puts the due date at October. I believe we can deliver within this time period and keep the same proposal if that would be an easier solution. Thanks!

[keeganquigley]

Thanks @qstnus feel free to make the changes, as my vote is just one out of the entire committee and other members may feel differently.

[qstnus]

Improved application with new functionality, accomplishments and updated roadmap

[qstnus]

I changed the deliverables to reflect the new functionality

[qstnus]

Hello @keeganquigley,

I appreciate the transparency. The application has been updated. Let me know if I need to do anything else!

[Noc2]

Thanks for the update. What kind of ZK proofs will you use, and what are your long-term plans regarding Polkadot? To be honest, from your reply here, it sounds like we are supporting a NEAR project now.

[takahser]

@qstnus I added some inline comments, feel free to have a look. The proprietary dependency is a no-go for me, so I'll abstain from approving under the current circumstances.

[qstnus]

I re-arranged the team section and removed the proprietary language

[qstnus]

Hello Polkadot,

For clarification, we filed for this grant a year ago and decided to pivot our implementation after multiple feedback. I apologize for the confusion but DOT has always been in our roadmap. We started with Moonbeam first given its EVM compatibility and SAFE integration - now that is complete we will focus on the local substrate chain.

It's a bit frustrating to have a grant potentially rescinded when we budgeted for this, hired developers specifically within the ecosystem from the PBA and it almost feels as if we are being punished for being a multichain application.

The reason DOT is attractive is because it aims to be intraoperative. Yes, we started this implementation on NEAR but given their connection with the Rust language - this is a natural evolution to our product.

I have been following Polkadot since before the bull run and to work with the Web3 Foundation is a literal goal as a builder in the ecosystem for myself and our CTO. I have spent the past two years working very hard on this project as a solo and underrepresented founder so whatever information you need, I will procure.

@Noc2

Comment 1:
We are sourcing the ZK proof mechanism from Polygon ID (https://polygon.technology/polygon-id) - these cryptographic proofs occur off-chain and allow us to create attestations within the QSTN user profile after KYC and survey completion.

In regards to future plans on Polkadot:

1. We plan to attend the PBA 5 Cohort in Singapore (spoken to Tim Dobie) and were confirmed for the last cohort but were unable to attend due to visa issues
2. We plan to integrate and partner with a marketplace on Polkadot to allow users to mint their survey media and access secondary trading liquidity
3. We will apply for the Polkadot Global Relayers Program again - denied last time but will continue to apply

Improvements from NEAR MVP to DOT:

1. Create leaderboards to track most active businesses and users
2. Create credibility score using AI to filter user responses
3. Create user funnel to allow business to index DOT customer profiles based on responses

@takahser

Comment: 1
I removed the proprietary language from our documentation - I wrote it this way because we are patent pending for a couple methods and wanted to share our competitive moat but deliverable 5 is confirmation we will open source the ZKP API

Comment: 2
This has been moved to the correct section.

Comment: 3
We will not be building an integration between SAFE and Substrate because SAFE is only supporting EVM chains at the moment. I was explaining SAFE is the vault mechanism used in our EVM scenario but on DOT users have to claim with their Polkadot JS wallet directly.

Comment: 4
A zero knowledge proof allows us to keep these attestations for KYC and/or survey completion within the user profile. Instead of writing in storage, we store these attestations in their user profile which doubles as a "data wallet" - in this manner, we allow users to autonomously withdraw rewards and our oracle scans for the ZKP.

If we act as an intermediary and make the reward determination, this is where we get into trouble as a US company given the regulatory uncertainty around securities, blockchains and our inability to facilitate user interactions with these assets.

[takahser]

@qstnus thanks for the updates and the detailed replies, I appreciate the work you're putting into this.

We will create an API for the Cubby data wallet

This means that the ZKPs are integrated with a proprietary product (Cubby) which still goes against our guidelines, even if the deliverable itself is open-sourced:

All code produced as part of a grant must be open-sourced, and it must also not rely on closed-source software for full functionality.

I'm fine with everything else, so if you would open-source Cubby (or maybe a downsized version thereof) I'd be willing to add my approval to the amendment. If that's not possible from a business perspective since you describe it as your competitive moat I'd understand of course, but in that case I wouldn't be able to add my approval.

[qstnus]

We added the data wallet as a deliverable

[qstnus]

Hello @takahser,

Thanks for the feedback. I spoke with our CTO and we will open source the data wallet as a deliverable. This has been included in our proposal. Please let me know if we should provide additional information.

Looking forward to the next steps!

[takahser]

@qstnus thanks for the update. LGTM.

[nikw3f]

LGTM

[qstnus]

Hello @takahser & @nikw3f,

Thanks for the support. We look forward to reaching mainnet on Polkadot. LGTM!