Spark Program | Scryve: Structured Expert Testing Program

English
,
1

Scryve

Team

Telmo - Co‑Founder, Developer & Development Advisor

Albert - Co‑Founder, Chief Financial Officer
Responsible for project coordination, funding management, and evaluator recruitment for the structured testing program.

Development Team (Names Withheld at Their Request):

  • Dev 1 - Responsible for implementing platform features across frontend and backend, responsible for real‑time CKB interaction flows.
  • Dev 2 (back-end) - Responsible for designing APIs, CKB RPC integration, witness‑parsing logic, and handling of multi‑chain identity (Omnilock).
  • Dev 3 (front-end) - Responsible for publishing UI, certificate pages, UX flows for sealing, Arweave verification, and NFT minting interfaces and others.

The team is responsible for the development of the CKB modules included in the proposal and will support evaluators during the structured testing program.

Project description:
Scryve aims to be a platform where writers share their best work and readers discover great stories – with built-in tipping, subscriptions, and blockchain-verified proof that your content is yours.

find the full proposal in the following link. → https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uwSDze-GXglqXam2mIhG0obRXQUdScyp/view

–

Scryve

团队（Team）

Telmo — 联合创始人、开发者 / 开发顾问

Albert — 联合创始人、首席财务官
负责项目统筹、资金管理，以及结构化测试计划中评估人员的招募与协调。

开发团队（根据要求匿名）：

  • 开发者 1（Dev 1） — 负责平台前后端功能实现，以及实时 CKB 交互流程的开发。
  • 开发者 2（后端） — 负责 API 设计、CKB RPC 集成、witness 解析逻辑，以及多链身份（Omnilock）的处理。
  • 开发者 3（前端） — 负责发布界面、证书页面、封印流程的用户体验、Arweave 验证、NFT 铸造界面等前端功能开发。

该团队共同负责本提案中所有 CKB 模块的开发，并将在结构化专家测试计划期间为评估人员提供支持。

项目描述（Project Description）

Scryve 致力于打造一个让作者分享优秀作品、读者发现精彩故事的平台 ——
平台内置 打赏（tipping）、订阅（subscriptions），并通过 区块链验证确保您的内容真正归属于您。

完整提案请见：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uwSDze-GXglqXam2mIhG0obRXQUdScyp/view

8 Likes
CKB Ecosystem Biweekly Update
2

Hi InkHaven,

The committee will come back and review after the festival.
Thanks for your patience!

6 Likes
3

Hi @InkHaven,

Thank you for submitting the “Scryve: Structured Expert Testing Program” project application to the Spark Program!

The Spark Program committee has formally reviewed your proposal. After thorough discussion, we believe the overall direction of the project has potential, but the current submission contains considerable ambiguity in budget clarity, specificity of testing targets, and description of deliverables. These areas need further refinement to better meet the Spark Program’s core requirements of “small and fast, prototype validation, and clear deliverables.”

Therefore, your proposal is currently in Pending (Needs Revision) status. We invite you to revise and resubmit based on the feedback below, and we will arrange a new round of review as soon as possible:

Main Revision Recommendations

  1. Budget optimization and breakdown clarification
    The current budget amount is excessively high; please reduce the total appropriately. At the same time, specify the exact purpose of each allocation (although some details are mentioned in the proposal, the destination of most funds remains unclear).
    Special note: The proposal contains possible duplicates (for example, “on-chain testing fees” and “testing plan engineering support”); it is recommended to either combine them or clearly distinguish them to avoid double counting.

  2. Provide the specific link(s) to the project to be tested
    Please directly provide the specific project/protocol links (or a list of the test scope) you plan to conduct structured expert testing on, so the committee can understand the test subjects.

  3. Significantly improve proposal clarity (priority)
    a. The test content must be described directly: please clearly state “what exactly is to be tested” (rather than only describing the testing process or method).
    b. The description of deliverables needs to be more specific: the current text focuses more on the implementation process; we prefer to see clear, verifiable final deliverables.
    c. The Checklist section currently only lists metrics and expected outcomes; please add insights and other detailed content about the entire CKB ecosystem.
    d. Please provide the complete outline of this expert test report.

The revised proposal only needs to focus on supplementing the points above; there is no need for a major rewrite. When finished, please reply with the updated version in the original Nervos Talk thread, and we will complete a new round of evaluation within one week.

We believe that with these targeted adjustments, the Scryve project will more clearly demonstrate its value as a Spark prototype project and will be easier to execute and present to the community. We look forward to seeing your revised version!

If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this post at any time.

Best regards,
xingtian
On behalf of the Spark Program Committee

3 Likes
ScryveHQ Tipping Roadmap Discussion: Cell‑Model vs. Fiber Micropayments
4

Hi @xingtian and the Spark Program Committee,

Thank you for the detailed review and the constructive feedback.
We’ve revised the proposal below, addressing each point directly, no major rewrite, only the targeted additions requested.

App References

REVISION 1 Budget Reduced to $1,000 (Line‑by‑Line Breakdown)

Previous total: $1,400
Revised total: $1,000

Reduction achieved by:

  • trimming to 6 evaluators
  • merging the two overlapping line items flagged by the committee

Budget Table

Category Amount What is paid for
Expert Evaluator Honoraria (6 evaluators) $500 6 evaluators × ~$80 each. Covers structured testing of 30+ criteria on mainnet.
Engineering & On‑Chain Costs $300 Fixing CKB‑integration bugs surfaced in testing, plus on‑chain costs: tx fees, tips, Spore NFT capacity , and Arweave archival.
Evaluation Design & Tester Onboarding $100 Writing the criteria checklist, onboarding guide, walkthrough docs, evaluator coordination.
Public Report & Nervos Talk Post $100 Producing the final testing report, screenshots, open‑source documentation, and the Talk summary.
TOTAL $1,000 —

Payment currency: USDI 100%

REVISION 2 Exact Test Subject Links (All Public & Verifiable)

PLATFORM

https://scryvehq.com

Mainnet Proof From Pre‑Grant Testing

These links demonstrate Modules 2 & 4 already functioning end‑to‑end on mainnet.

Module‑by‑Module Public Links

Module 1 Multi‑Chain Wallet Auth (Omnilock)

Module 2 Witness‑Based Basic Authorship Seal

  • Entry: any article → Seal Article
  • Certificate pattern: https://scryvehq.com/certificate/[article-id]
  • Explorer verification: https://explorer.nervos.org/transaction/[txHash]

Pre-grant example provided above.

Module 3 Spore NFT Seal

  • Entry: Certificate page → Mint Spore NFT
  • Minted NFT visible in evaluator’s wallet + explorer tx link.

Module 4 Content Integrity & Arweave Archival

  • Arweave archive pattern: https://arweave.net/[arweaveTxId]
  • Pre-grant example provided above.
  • Editing the article after sealing triggers content modified warnings.

Module 5 CKB-Linked Monetization

  • Entry: article → Tip Author
  • Tip verification:
    https://scryvehq.com/api/tips/verify?txHash=[hash]

Cross‑check on https://explorer.nervos.org.

REVISION 3 Exact Testing Scope (30+ Criteria)

Module 1: CKB Identity — Omnilock Multi‑Chain Auth

Tests include:

  • EVM wallet connects → valid Omnilock address (ckb…)
  • BTC P2TR wallet → correct Schnorr‑derived CKB address
  • Session persistence
  • Email-to-wallet account merge behavior

Module 2: Witness-Based Basic Seal

Tests include:

  • Correct SHA‑256 hashing of normalized article content
  • Signature workflows (CKB, EVM, BTC)
  • Tx confirmation target: <5 minutes
  • Certificate page parses and displays witness data
  • Independent hash recomputation matches on-chain

Module 3: Spore NFT Seal

Tests include:

  • 16‑byte DNA encoding structure correctness
  • CKB capacity estimate accuracy
  • NFT appears in evaluator wallet
  • Melt flow correctly returns CKB

Module 4: Content Integrity & Arweave Archival

Tests include:

  • Automatic Arweave archival
  • Link resolves to original article
  • Editing after sealing triggers warnings
  • Archive remains immutable

Module 5: CKB-Linked Monetization

Tests include:

  • Tip routing and fee splits
  • Min-capacity enforcement correctness
  • Tip verification API consistency
  • Subscription unlocks premium features

REVISION 4a Deliverables (Specific & Verifiable)

A. Public Testing Report

Includes:

  • Criteria results table
  • Module findings + screenshots
  • All mainnet tx hashes
  • Arweave archive links
  • Issue log + severities

B. Public CKB Integration Issue Tracker

  • Labeled by module
  • Resolution status recorded

C. Five Open‑Source CKB Packages (MIT License)

Packages:

  • ckb-wallet-auth
  • ckb-content-seal
  • ckb-payment-split
  • ckb-spore-seal
  • ckb-witness-data

Each includes README, API docs, and code examples.

D. Nervos Talk Post

  • Summary, screenshots, tx links
  • Key findings and resolved issues

E. Structured Evaluator Checklist

Published before testing begins.

REVISION 4b / Full Testing Report Outline

1. Executive Summary

2. Evaluator Cohort

3. Module‑by‑Module Results

  • 3.1 CKB Identity (Omnilock)
  • 3.2 Witness-Based Seal
  • 3.3 Spore NFT Seal
  • 3.4 Content Integrity + Arweave
  • 3.5 Monetization

4. Aggregate Issue Log

5. Open‑Source Package Status

6. Lessons for CKB Builders

7. Appendices

  • Evaluator checklist
  • tx hashes
  • Arweave links
  • Evaluator notes

REVISION 4c / CKB Ecosystem Insights (Lessons for Builders)

Covers:

  1. Omnilock practical considerations
  2. Witness data patterns
  3. Minimum cell capacity UX issues
  4. Spore NFT minting challenges
  5. JoyID SDK multi‑chain quirks
  6. Arweave archival strategies

Timeline

4 weeks from approval

Weeks 1/2

  • Publish checklist
  • Recruit + onboard evaluators
  • Begin testing on mainnet

Milestone 1: Checklist live, evaluators onboarded

Weeks 3/4

  • Evaluators complete full test flow
  • Resolve issues
  • Publish open-source packages
  • Publish final report + Talk post

Milestone 2: Report + packages + post all live

Success Criteria

  • 6 evaluators complete full flow
  • CKB address verification via explorer
  • Content‑hash validations pass
  • Report published with evidence + verifiable tx links
  • Arweave links verifiable
  • CKB issues resolved
  • Talk post published
  • All five packages open‑sourced

We believe this revision directly answers all committee concerns.
Every module includes externally verifiable links demonstrating live, working CKB integrations today.

Happy to clarify anything else.

2 Likes
5

Out of curiosity why does it cost $100 to produce a report and post the talk summary?

2 Likes
6

Hi @kevtam515 and thanks for the question! The $100 covers roughly 3–5 hours of focused work to turn raw testing outputs (logs, screenshots, issue trackers, on-chain proofs) into a clean, professional public report. This includes:
Compiling/verifying all criteria results across modules.
Formatting for readability (Markdown, tables, embedded screenshots/proofs).
Writing a concise executive summary + detailed findings.
Preparing open-source docs/packages for GitHub.
Crafting and posting a polished Nervos Talk summary thread (with links, visuals, and calls for feedback).
At a modest freelance-equivalent rate (~$20–$35/hour for technical writing/documentation in open-source/blockchain contexts), it adds up quickly while keeping the overall ask low ($1,000 total). It’s not just “writing a quick post”, it’s ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and value for the Nervos ecosystem reviewers/future users.

3 Likes
7

Hi @InkHaven,

Thank you for taking the time to revise the proposal based on our earlier feedback. The committee has completed its second review and, after careful discussion, regrets to reject the Scryve project at this time.

We want to be transparent about the reasoning behind this decision:

1. Key areas still lack sufficient clarity. While the revision addressed several of our earlier concerns, the core deliverables remain difficult to evaluate. For example, the five open-source packages lack clear descriptions of their current status (new development vs. extraction from existing code), scope, and what specifically would be built during the Spark period. The testing criteria are listed in detail, but the connection between test outputs and reusable ecosystem value is not well established.

2. The project does not align with Spark’s prototype validation model. Spark is designed to fund early-stage development, whether building a PoC or conducting initial user validation to test product-market fit. The proposed structured expert testing is closer to a technical QA audit of an already-functioning product.

3. Ecosystem value is difficult to assess. We recognize that this testing program may generate useful findings for Scryve itself. However, the value it would bring to the broader CKB ecosystem, beyond the project’s own product improvement, is not clearly demonstrated in the current proposal.

We appreciate the work your team has put into Scryve and the CKB integrations you’ve already built. If in the future you plan to develop new standalone tools or libraries for the CKB ecosystem, we would welcome a new application focused on that direction.

Hi @InkHaven，

感谢你根据我们之前的反馈对提案进行了修订。委员会已完成第二轮评审，经过充分讨论，我们很遗憾的决定拒绝 Scryve 项目。

以下是本次决定的主要考量：

1. 需要补充的关键内容仍不够清晰。 修订版回应了我们此前提出的部分问题，但核心交付物仍然难以准确评估。例如，五个开源包没有说明当前的开发状态（是从零开始还是从现有代码中抽取）、具体范围，以及 Spark 资助期间需要完成哪些工作。测试标准虽然列举得很详细，但测试产出与可复用的生态价值之间的联系并不明确。

2. 项目与 Spark 的原型验证定位不匹配。 Spark 的设计初衷是资助早期开发，包括构建 PoC 或进行初始用户验证以测试产品需求。本提案所描述的结构化专家测试更接近对已运行产品的技术 QA 审计。

3. 对生态的价值难以判断。 我们认可这项测试可能为 Scryve 自身带来有价值的发现，但它对更广泛的 CKB 生态能产生什么贡献，在当前提案中并未得到充分论证。

我们非常认可你们团队在 Scryve 上所做的工作以及已经完成的 CKB 集成。如果未来你们计划开发面向 CKB 生态的独立工具或通用库，我们欢迎以该方向重新提交申请。

Best,
zz
On behalf of the Spark Program Committee

CC @Hanssen @yixiu.ckbfans.bit @xingtianchunyan

7 Likes
CKB Ecosystem Biweekly Update
8

Hi @zz_tovarishch

Thank you for the feedback on our Scryve proposal and for the thorough review process. We truly appreciate the transparency, which helps us refine our approach to contributing to the CKB ecosystem.

For now, we’ll continue building Scryve and its CKB integrations. If we find it beneficial for the ecosystem, we’ll open a new proposal.

Best regards,

你好 @zz_tovarishch，

感谢您对 Scryve 提案的反馈以及彻底的审查过程。我们非常感激这种透明度，这有助于我们完善对 CKB 生态系统的贡献方式。

目前，我们将继续构建 Scryve 及其 CKB 集成。如果我们认为对生态系统有益，我们将开启一个新的提案。

此致敬礼，

4 Likes
9

Keep building, and feel free to reach out anytime!

继续加油，随时联系！

Best,
zz

3 Likes