We have submitted a ZCG grant application for 1CAD Protocol — an open-source ZK-TLS infrastructure standard automating Proof-of-Solvency and Source of Wealth (SoW) verification without exposing sensitive user payloads (RFC-1001/0201).
GitHub Grant Proposal Issue:
We welcome any feedback, questions, and discussion from the community!
You actually just pasted what the AI told you. You actually just uploaded documents Claude generated VERBATIM?
“RFC-1001” RFC-1001 is an RFC about NetBIOS specs. RFC-0201 is not a document that exists or is ratified. What?
“No jurisdiction in this set defines a common list of acceptable evidence types, a common data format, or a mechanism for one institution’s accepted SOF file to be recognised by another — across borders or even within the same country. Every freeze, every onboarding check, and every enhanced-due-diligence request currently starts from zero.”
THATS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. THE JURISDICTION HAS NOT DEFINED IT. You cannot define it! You have no right to do that, and ergo, no one will adopt it until every jurisdiction’s government individually approves your (and countless others, see xkcd: Standards ) protocol.
Which they would definitely do, right? The UN quorum can’t agree on what colour to put on the new building logo, let alone your “global AML structure”.
All I ask to applicants here is (a) be coherent, (b) be authentic, and (c) actually be realistic. My god.
ok fair point on RFC-1001, that was dumb, that number’s literally the NetBIOS spec, my bad. honestly we shouldn’t be calling our own docs “RFC” at all, that’s an IETF thing not ours to use. gonna rename the whole series so this doesn’t happen again, will fix the application too.
on the “who gave you the right” thing, no one did, that’s kind of the point, we’re not asking anyone’s permission we’re just building a spec and trying to get it recognized the same way PCI-DSS or SWIFT formats did, private thing first, government/institutional recognition later if it’s actually useful. that’s why we’re going through BSI, FCA, AMLA consultations etc, slowly, no guarantee it works. the “global AML structure” line in the application was overselling it, that’s on me, should’ve just said what it actually is.
appreciate the harsh read tbh, better to hear it now than after wasting everyone’s time
fixed the RFC-1001/RFC-0201 naming thing you pointed out. renamed the whole series from RFC- to IDAA- across the repo, updated the internal cross-references, and also filled in the IDAA-1004 gap (verifier interface spec) that was referenced but never actually written. commit’s here if you want to check: Remove local helper script, not part of the published specs · EXCH-Services/RFC@6652421 · GitHub
still don’t expect anyone to just take “1CAD is the standard” at face value, that’s fair pushback and the whole point of publishing this stuff openly instead of behind closed doors. if you want more on the actual reasoning (not just the file names), the white paper goes into why we went with ZK-TLS attestation instead of raw document exchange: https://idaa.uk/guides/1CAD_White_Paper.pdf
Thank you for submitting your proposal. Following a thorough review by the ZCG and a period for community feedback on the forum, the committee has decided not to move forward with this proposal.
We encourage you to stay involved and continue contributing to the Zcash community.
