Threshold
✅ Why Vote YES
• Proactive, intelligent security: The platform learns from every new scam and adapts its detection models continuously—far beyond rule-based tools.
• Real-time threat monitoring: Detects malicious behavior as it happens—across runtime pallets, smart contracts, OpenGov, and cross-chain interactions.
• Accessible to everyone: Simple web interface requires no technical skills; users just paste an address for instant threat assessment.
• Polkadot-specific focus: Tailored analysis for ink! contracts, XCMP/HRMP messaging, staking/governance pallets, and OpenGov manipulation risks.
• Proven effectiveness: Already scanned 12,000+ contracts, prevented $5.7M+ in losses, and identified 2,800+ scams with 98.5% accuracy.
• Fills critical gaps: Goes beyond existing tools like Scout and ink! Analyzer by incorporating social signals, behavior patterns, and multi-chain context.
• Low cost, high impact: Only 9,900 DOT for full delivery in 7 weeks—well-scoped across 3 clear development phases.
• Reinforces Polkadot’s position as a security-conscious and innovation-driven Web3 ecosystem.
⸻
❌ Why Vote NO
• Single-team project: No open competition or collaboration—concentrates trust in one team.
• Unclear long-term governance: Who maintains, audits, or evolves the tool beyond this 7-week sprint?
• Privacy concerns: Behavioral analysis and social signal mining may raise ethical concerns around user tracking and algorithmic bias.
• Partial redundancy risk: Some upcoming improvements to ink! tooling and OpenGov monitoring may overlap with this system’s functions.
⸻
🎯 A focused and high-impact initiative that could elevate Polkadot’s security leadership—though some voters may prefer broader collaboration or stronger guarantees for long-term stewardship.
Hi @TS
Thank you for the detailed and valid concerns about transparency. Let me address each point with evidence:
Platform Verification & Real-World Impact:
Just 2 days ago, our platform detected a rug pull in a trending token that appeared on CoinMarketCap's top trending list. Here's the live demonstration:
📹 Video proof: **https://youtu.be/yK8z3mtjATM **(Step-by-step detection of a real scam)
🔗 LinkedIn post: https://linkedin.com/in/drashouri (detailed case study)
🌐 Live platform: https://amirug.xyz (try it yourself with any contract)
This demonstrates exactly why we need intelligent security tools .. even experienced investors can miss sophisticated scam patterns that AI detects in 30 seconds.
Technical Methodology (92% Accuracy):
Our accuracy comes from training on 8,000+ labeled token datasets across multiple chains:
Training set: Historical rug pulls, legitimate projects, honeypots, and exit scams
Validation: Cross-validation on known outcomes from 2023-2024
Live testing: Continuous validation against real-world events (like the recent example above)
We're preparing a technical paper for publication, but the live demonstration shows the system working in real-time on actual threats.
GitHub & Development Security:
You're correct that our public GitHub shows research/demo code. This is intentional:
Security reasons: Core detection algorithms aren't public to prevent bypass techniques by scammer and other hackers for now
Active development: Main development happens in private repositories for security
Team Verification:
Arjun: Computer Science graduate, 5+ years ML experience, can provide references upon request
Zer0_Cipher: Maintains operational security (common in vulnerability research), University of Potsdam alumni, active in German security conferences
Polkadot Ecosystem Connections:
sub0 Asia 2024: Technical presentation on Polkadot security (YouTube link in proposal)
Academy work: Currently researching with Polkadot Academy team on Rust security
Immediate Validation:
Anyone can verify our platform works by:
Visiting https://amirug.xyz
Testing with known scam contracts
Comparing results with actual project outcomes
The recent video shows this process live with a real trending scam token.
Why This Matters for Polkadot:
The recent detection demonstrates why Polkadot needs intelligent security tools. As our ecosystem grows and attracts more projects, we need proactive protection, not reactive measures.
I appreciate the scrutiny - security tools should be held to the highest standards. Happy to provide additional documentation or answer specific technical questions.
Best regards,
Dr. Mohammadreza Ashouri
P.S. The YouTube demo shows exactly what we'll build for Polkadot - simple, accessible, and effective security analysis for everyone in the ecosystem.
Edited
Hi @Nicholas97,
Thank you for recognizing the real need for intelligent security in Polkadot's DeFi ecosystem! You've captured exactly why we built amIrug.xyz - to go beyond traditional code analysis and provide concise protection that adapts to new threats.
The recent example I shared (YouTube demo : https://youtu.be/yK8z3mtjATM ) shows exactly this in action - detecting a complex scam and hacks that appeared on CoinMarketCap's trending list. This is the kind of multi-layered protection Polkadot needs as it scales.
Really appreciate your support and understanding of the proposal's value!
Best,
Mo
Hi @AzzMog ,
Excellent balanced analysis! You've highlighted both the strengths and legitimate concerns perfectly.
Addressing your "Why Vote NO" points:
Single-team project: We're absolutely open to collaboration. Post-launch, we plan to open-source core components and work with the community for continuous improvement.
Long-term governance: Great point. We propose establishing a community advisory board including security researchers from the ecosystem to guide future development and ensure accountability.
Privacy concerns: Our social signal analysis focuses only on publicly available on-chain data and governance participation - no private data collection. We can implement clear privacy guidelines.
Redundancy risk: We're actually complementary to existing tools like Scout. While they do static analysis, we provide the behavioral intelligence layer that's currently missing.
Your analysis shows exactly the kind of thoughtful evaluation this proposal deserves. Thank you for the detailed breakdown!
Best,
Mo
OG Tracker Rating 2/3
Clear display of deliverables✅
Clear display of a valid direct point of contact ❌
Clear display of proposal’s duration✅
OGT Rating aims to help voters make better informed decisions and direct proposers towards certain common-good practices. We are providing feedback based on 3 simple yet crucial criteria which we believe should be included in every OpenGov referenda.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and five nay votes from ten available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
In the recent referendum, several voters expressed skepticism about the timing of the proposed tool, indicating it might not be necessary at the present moment. Many believed it would be more appropriate to reassess once the Polkadot Hub was operational and had a clearer understanding of security needs and the availability of smart contracts. Overall, the consensus leaned towards deferring the proposal until future developments could provide a better context for its implementation.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
PolkaWorld votes NAY on this proposal.
Additionally, we have some open questions:
• No clear open-source commitment: It’s unclear whether the tool and its AI models will be open-sourced or open to community review and contribution.
• Missing integration roadmap: There’s no explanation of how this tool will be adopted by the ecosystem — e.g., by parachains, wallets, block explorers, or official APIs.
• Lack of ecosystem endorsements: No supporting statements or usage commitments from any ecosystem teams are provided.
• Sustainability concerns: With only a 7-week development timeline, there’s no information on how the tool will be maintained, governed, or expanded after delivery.
You can view our full feedback here.
onchain identity not available