Contest Proposal: Anonymous Token Design Contest Proposal

Submission period: May 7, 2021 00:01 UTC - June 30, 2021 at 23:59 UTC

Voting period: 20 days

Background and Description

Anonymous token protocol. Faster and cheaper alternative to ZCash. No need for
the introduction.

Recent community discussion revealed there are several anonymous token protocol
design considerations circulating around and no clear publicly audible design
description is present. This means, before announcing the anonymous token protocol
implementation contest, there is a need to determine the particular design to
for the implementation and agree on it to avoid misunderstandings.

Instructions for participants

This contest supposes participants to design the anonymous token protocol using
the recently introduced Groth16 proof verification instruction.

Proof generation and circuit construction documentation is available at: Crypto3 Cryptography Suite.

In case there is no VERGRTH16 instruction available in primary cluster,
participants are supposed to use the test cluster based on C++ ZKP TON client.
Network configuration used for the contest is available here:
ton-proof-verification-contest/testnet.config.json at master · NilFoundation/ton-proof-verification-contest · GitHub.

ZKP test network visualization is available at: and at:

General requirements

  • Protocol design should address transactions involving “token” transactions (in terms of protocol application logic) to become theoretically untraceable.
  • Formal description with provable statements (with formal proofs present, for sure).
  • The design may involve VERGRTH16 TVM instruction usage.
  • The design is better to be compatible with TIP-3 token standard.

Evaluation criteria and winning conditions

  • A participant should do a presentation of her solution at a convenient time agreed with DevEx members.


  • Jurors whose team(s) intend to participate in this contest by providing submissions lose their right to vote in this contest.
  • A jury from other sub-governance groups could be added to this contest to provide additional technical expertise.
  • Each juror will vote by rating each submission on a scale of 1 to 10.
  • Jurors should provide feedback on each submission.
  • The jury will reject duplicate, subpar, incomplete, or inappropriate submissions.

Only submissions with an average score equal to or more than 6.0 can get a reward.

1st prize 100 000 TONs
2nd prize 75 000 TONs
3rd prize 50 000 TONs
4th prize 30 000 TONs
5th prize 25 000 TONs
6th-10 prize 20 000 TONs

Note: In case the winning submissions amount is less than the number of rewards available, any remaining rewards are not subject to distribution and are considered void.

Jury rewards
An amount equal to 15% of all total tokens actually awarded will be distributed equally between all jurors who vote and provide feedback. Both voting and feedback are mandatory in order to collect the reward.

Governance rewards
An amount equal to 2 % of the prize fund will be allocated to members who participated in organizing the contest, to be distributed equally among them:

Procedural remarks

  • Participants must upload their work correctly so it can be viewed and accessible in the formats described. If work is inaccessible or does not fit the criteria described, the submission may be rejected by jurors.
  • Participants must submit their work before the closing of the filing of applications. If not submitted on time, the submission will not count.

Rewards for 1-5 places were amended:
1st prize 120 000 TONs
2nd prize 100 000 TONs
3rd prize 80 000 TONs
4th prize 50 000 TONs
5th prize 30 000 TONs
Additional clause was added:
Participants are free to ask/resolve any questions and propose any suggestions at the AMA event planned to be held no later than May 20, 2021.

1 Like

The same remark as for other ZKP contest.
It could happend that 6th place will have score 8 and 10th place will have score 6. It will be a big difference in quality of these submissions. So I am against to give them the same reward.
What is the point if they have different scores??
It is just not fair.
So I would recommend to assign the different rewards for every place. For example,
6th place … 23,000 TONs
7th place … 21,000 TONs
8th place … 19,000 TONs
9th place … 17,000 TONs
10th place … 15,000 TONs

1 Like

It is a bit different for this one. There could be unlimited number of test ZKP use cases, but we don’t really need too many specifications of TON Cash. Thus for this contest the idea is that only top articles will get high rewards.

1 Like

It was agreed during today DevEx meetup to accept this rewards ledger proposal. Also additional evaluation criterion was added: ● Submissions should be compared based on efficiency (justified speed of proof generation and verification) and simplicity (for development).

Contest Prolongation Proposal: Anonymous Token Design

It is proposed to amend the following parameters to the following contest: 0:3791d482d9db624cb690c43cb8a81fb630d70c3e4e328a7a14d2026c9117e7f9

Submission period: May 7, 2021 00:01 UTC - July 15, 2021 at 23:59 UTC

Voting period: 20 days

What is the rationale for this?

If if was only up to me, I would’ve ended this contest by the end of this week, since the design from our side is already done (ready to be shown for quite a long time actually) and the implementation is waiting for its turn for a month at least already. But since this is a contest, we gotta make sure all the participants have enough time to present their solutions.

Moreover, there was also a request submitted about the Contest Proposal: Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification Use Cases - #10 by nemo contest prolongation according to participants willing to submit more complicated solutions than it was expected initially.

Such contests has to be properly announced, but unfortunately, it was delayed a little bit. Now it is done (These zk-SNARKS contests offer $250K rewards for Zcash privacy protocol) and this might attract more participants.

1 Like

There is no need to prolong this contest since it was not affected with Nil testnet relaunch/ connection problems.

Expand the Jury Members List Proposal

Contest to change: #19 Anonymous Token Design Contest Proposal
Contest address: 0:08d7f0ca8049c35377dddb83ffc48e34a2ac8666cdcac49e3848a0e706b6bb1c
Proposed changes: Adding Formal Verification Subgov team to the Jury members of contest

Following the decision taken at DevEx Subgov Weekly Zoom,
in addition to the regular DevEx Subgov Jury Members,
it is proposed to add the following Formal Verification Subgov Initial Members to the contest jury list:

  • Sergey EGOROV @sergeyegorovspb 67dd20b9a760ae538a7f24ebfbaaf09a7075b4617a7ad09c19503c2551f57d81 0:d0e20274758acb651930c5b9b7dfda330583624f0e4d0b8ffc63bc287c69c5e3
  • Andrey LYASHIN @andruiman cec27f6cfdadadc5da135875d5988019bd8a760fe6e16fe1f49459cf6d18f9e7 0:0a98551dd36a5dc65f4510362f3528dd195862a054aa70fcdd7ca8925a54ece4
  • Fabrice LE FESSANT @fabrice_dune 4aca372ed9695ab42cc8ba7fd7f56d11c2401611c2d513bbc28beb5c7f4363a1 0:24a44423bc7edc2598b50ae87267bd06bc53455328e837dae32b9b7592716de7
  • Thomas SIBUT-PINOTE @ThomasSibutPinote 50384ec36bee19914526f436a0adf57d0c35389934b5aaca15db5b5e89f42aa0 0:95d0f87463175d9cfeb5fd62df6699d56de1fdecb5d823cae21de84aaba3ed12
  • Evgeniy Shishkin @unboxedtype 6ff61c1a7bb09795f7b5d5514dd710efb72e9557654d362ef208fde545ba7a33 0:ef3813861e4717bc5b34bbdc13b3498ad2b0198100f87b9fa28cd080854c4ad8

Submission for Anonymous Token Design Contest


1 Like

Hi guys, please, specify your telegram username, so jury members could contact you in case of any questions. Thanks!

1 Like


Questions? @nemothenoone (Profile - nemo - Free TON)

Contest Amendment Proposal: Anonymous Token Design Contest Score Change

It is proposed to amend the Reward paragraph to lower the score for the submission to be accounted as acceptable one as follows:


Only submissions with an average score equal to or more than 4.5 can get a reward.


#53 Free TON Dev Experience Governance document says:

"[the decisions within the Free TON Dev Experience Jury groups are to be taken by 50% + 1

vote from a number of jurors within a group;]("

Although it is not entirely clear what decisions are being discussed here, in practice this was used to make the decision of the jury that the contest succeeded and that the participants submissions were worthy of receiving rewards.

In contest #19 Anonymous Token Design Contest Proposal only 5 of 14 jury members made assessments. Following previous statement and current practice, the contests failed.

Taking into account that the subject of the ZKP is new for the jury of DevEx SubGov, and the jury may not have enough experience and qualifications to issue marks, it is proposed:

  1. consider the marks of 5 judges sufficient for the successful completion of this contest;
  2. give reward according to the contest description and its all previously approved amendments;
1 Like