Added Wildcard Asset Hub grant.

[ssafai]

Project Abstract

WILDCARD is a next-generation, trustless multi-chain L2 protocol designed to eliminate ecosystem lock-in for NFTs and fungible assets. It transforms gaming and web3 markets by offering gasless, near-instant transactions and a non-custodial marketplace for secure asset minting, transfers, and trading. As a blockchain-agnostic solution, WILDCARD simplifies secure token bridging, allowing creators to launch chain-independent collections, games, and web3 experiences effortlessly.

A critical next step for WILDCARD is the Polkadot Asset Hub Integration, which enhances asset management and interoperability within the network. Asset Hub's first-class interface for fungible and non-fungible assets provides an efficient, low-cost infrastructure for asset creation and transfers. Integrating with Asset Hub strengthens WILDCARD’s cross-chain liquidity and ensures faster, more scalable NFT movements across different blockchains.

Grant level

• 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 (Polkadot AssetHub (USDC & DOT) address in the application and bank details via email, if applicable).
• I understand that an agreed upon percentage of each milestone will be paid in vested DOT, to the Polkadot address listed in the application.
• I am aware that, in order to receive a grant, I (and the entity I represent) have to successfully complete a KYC/KYB check.
• 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)

[ssafai]

I have read and hereby sign the Contributor License Agreement.

[PieWol]

Hey @ssafai
thank you for the application. I already pushed it forward to the team and requested reviews.

What's the reason to use TEEs here? Just from reading the application I don't understand the need for TEEs, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain it to me. Thanks!

Did you also explore the option to extend snowbridge so that it supports NFTs?

[ssafai]

Hey @ssafai thank you for the application. I already pushed it forward to the team and requested reviews.

What's the reason to use TEEs here? Just from reading the application I don't understand the need for TEEs, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain it to me. Thanks!

Did you also explore the option to extend snowbridge so that it supports NFTs?

Hi @PieWol,

Thank you for reviewing our proposal!

In short, TEEs allow us to avoid the need for an on-chain execution layer (which would be expensive and slow), while still achieving strong security, correctness, and liveness guarantees in a chain-agnostic manner. Our overall goal was to create an alternative to zero-knowledge proofs based systems which are more resource demanding and need a GPU-Cluster for the same throughput.

This builds on our prior work in CommiTEE, which formalizes this model and has been peer-reviewed and published (EuroS&P 2023). CommiTEE introduces an alternative to rollups which does not rely on zero knowledge proofs and does not need on-chain checkpoints.
Yes, we have indeed looked at Snowbridge. It is currently tightly coupled between Ethereum and Polkadot, which limits generalizability. WILDCARD is designed to be multi-chain and extensible including non-EVM chains, not just a one-off bridge. With this project, we also aim to further the blockchain gaming use case, for which WILDCARD's ability to facilitate cheap, low-latency, high-throughput transactions is essential.

If you have more questions feel free to contact us,

Kind regards, Sasan

[Noc2]

Thanks a lot for the application. How are you planning to compete with the existing Ethereum bridges like Wormhole, LayerZero, or Axelar? Most established teams have existing relationships with these bridges and are unwilling to consider working together with other bridge providers, since it ultimately means additional work for them.

[ssafai]

Thanks a lot for the application. How are you planning to compete with the existing Ethereum bridges like Wormhole, LayerZero, or Axelar? Most established teams have existing relationships with these bridges and are unwilling to consider working together with other bridge providers, since it ultimately means additional work for them.

Thank you @Noc2 for your question!

We’re aware that bridges like Wormhole, LayerZero, and Axelar already have strong adoption in the Ethereum ecosystem, and that Axelar in particular connects to Polkadot via Moonbeam. Our approach is not a direct competitor to those solutions — it addresses a broader and different problem space:

Full Polkadot-native reach, not just Moonbeam EVM – Axelar’s Polkadot integration is limited to Moonbeam’s EVM environment. Our solution is integrated with the Polkadot Asset Hub and supports native parachain NFT standards and metadata (e.g., Pallet Unique), enabling direct interoperability with all parachains, not just Moonbeam.

No native token purchase requirement – Many existing bridges require fees to be paid in their own native tokens (e.g., AXL). We avoid this entirely, lowering friction for developers and users.

Gasless Layer-2-style mints with flexible offboarding – Our platform supports gasless NFT minting (important for gaming) in a staging layer, allowing creators to develop and test without committing to a single destination chain. They can then “offboard” to the blockchain of their choice - Polkadot, EVM, or others - when ready. This is a capability beyond the scope of Axelar, Wormhole, or LayerZero.

So we see Wildcard as a complementary, not replacement – Projects can keep using their existing Ethereum bridges while integrating our system to access the entire Polkadot ecosystem natively, with richer NFT functionality and a smoother developer experience.

I hope this answers your question and feel free to reachout if not! Sasan

[Noc2]

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply here. Understood, but I'm personally not convinced that we need another bridge at this stage and should rather focus on making sure the existing teams deploy their solution on Polkadot. That said, this is just my personal view regarding the proposal, and I will share the application again with everyone and ask them to review it.

[ssafai]

Thank you @Noc2 ,

As mentioned, we are not positioning Wildcard primarily as a bridge. Rather, we are building more of a Layer 2 solution for games on Polkadot, where the bridge functionality will be one feature among others — and it is already working as intended. Integrating the Asset Hub would make the solution complete for Polkadot, especially since its upcoming smart contract capability will open access to the Ethereum NFT market — a gap that Wildcard can fill seamlessly.

We really appreciate that you will take the time to review our proposal in the bigger round, and we’re hopeful that it will receive funding.

Best, Sasan

[Lederstrumpf]

Hi @ssafai, thank you for your application.

The gasless NFT minting certainly sounds appealing, and appreciate that you have put material research effort into CommitTEE.

I understand that you do not view this project as a bridge, but it certainly

1. offers the same solution as bridges do. And rather than, as you put it, "address[ing] a broader and different problem space", I'm more inclined to view it as a narrow subset of bridge protocols, restricted to NFTs.
2. requires the same b2b integration effort as a bridge, so has the same uphill for them

so I agree with @Noc2's bridge comparison.
In fact, since SGX regularly has vulnerabilities disclosed (most recently 12 August), I consider the uphill battle for integration of a TEE based NFT-bridging solution even harder than for one that's trustless at the protocol level, like BEEFY bridges.

Yes, we have indeed looked at Snowbridge. It is currently tightly coupled between Ethereum and Polkadot, which limits generalizability. WILDCARD is designed to be multi-chain and extensible including non-EVM chains, not just a one-off bridge.

Simultaneously, all milestones of this grant are EVM focused, so I'd currently view it as EVM-restricted. I don't doubt that wildcard CAN extend to non-EVM chains too (presumably with even further funding from W3F), but likewise the BEEFY protocol underlying Snowbridge is not Ethereum-specific, "not just a one-off bridge", hence I don't see an advantage in Wildcard against Snowbridge or any other BEEFY based bridge in this regard.

---

I respect that you're working closely with Ajuna Network, and have already pushed development version of Wildcard there. My understanding is that Ajuna's strictly relies on Integritee for their SGX TEE network - would your CommiTEE framework also do so; is its protocol/implementation fully compatible for production deployment atop Integritee, or would either require material changes?

My main concern with this grant:
Even under the unrealistic assumption that Ajuna's current market cap (< $300k) is supported by strong buy liquidity, the value of this grant ($95k) would already constitute a third of Ajuna's market cap. And it seems that Ajuna does not have any working dapps atm https://aaa.ajuna.io/ (fwiw, seems their Discord is also a graveyard by now).
So if only Ajuna integrates this, this grant is not sensible given low likehood/evidence of user adoption.
Have you been in discussion with Mythical Games for integration? Otherwise, are there any games built on Ajuna's SDK that have a material user base that would use this?

[Lederstrumpf]

See my above comment

[PieWol]

As you can see by comments above, we sadly couldn't gather enough approvals for your application. Thank you for the effort you put into it. Hopefully we can collaborate on other projects in the future. All the best going forward.

I'm closing this PR now, but feel free to continue the conversation or ask any questions.

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot: Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution. Please submit the following text as a separate comment:

---

I have read and hereby sign the Contributor License Agreement.

---

_{You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request}

[darkfriend77]

Hi @PieWol, @Noc2, @Lederstrumpf — Cédric from Ajuna here.
Commenting as an external stakeholder (Ajuna wasn’t the applicant). Just adding context for future readers, since Ajuna got mentioned:

• TEE history (for accuracy): Our IntegriTEE/SGX collaboration/experiment (the DOT 4 Gravity Unity mobile demo) concluded in 2022 after Lisbon; we didn’t pursue it further because the tech stack wasn’t ready for game dev adoption. Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ou8VHItvgU

• SDK scope is ecosystem-wide: The former “Ajuna SDK” work transitioned into the Polkadot SDK for Unity, available on the Unity Asset Store and targeting all Substrate-based chains, not just Ajuna: https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/decentralization/infrastructure/polkadot-sdk-for-unity-273535
  Built on our open Substrate C# stack: https://github.com/SubstrateGaming
  → If something is validated in an Ajuna game, it’s meant as a reference other substrate-based hains can reuse, not an Ajuna-only path.

• Non-EVM applicability (pallet-nfts / pallet-unique): From our understanding, WILDCARD supports pallet-nfts and pallet-unique on non-EVM parachains (and contracts for EVM chains). We agree pallet-nfts still has rough edges (e.g., attribute/relationship handling is immature). However, it’s a major utility unlock because attributes can live on-chain rather than relying on IPFS. To make that actually useful across ecosystems, you need an on-chain connection/bridge; otherwise you risk fragmentation (e.g., gameplay utility on Polkadot while value accrues externally — PENGU on Solana, Penguins on Ethereum).

• Adoption framing: We actually agree that if this were justified solely by Ajuna’s market cap, it wouldn’t make sense. The bigger aim is ecosystem utility—enabling established collections to gain in-ecosystem gameplay/utility via AssetHub EVM, not just circulating value on Ethereum/Solana.

An interesting thign would be facilitating an introduction between PolyCrypt and Mythical? If you assess there’s a fit, this could be a valuable collaboration.

Thanks for the thoughtful review and for all the work you do for the ecosystem.