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