Verifiable Creds in Cmrt Contracts

[GENERAL] Summarize your solution to the problem.

Using validation (Cmrt*) contracts rather than current processes to support VCs through SSI principles in a coherent system will allow employers and other receivers to utilize VCs according to need.

[GENERAL] Summarize your relevant experience.

I have been in higher education for over two decades and have been involved in open badges since Mozilla and VCs since their inception. Based on my direct experiences, iImplementing VCs in an ecosystem that allows others to use the VCs in ways that they want is very difficult.

[IMPACT] Please describe your proposed solution.

Verifiable Credentials are an important part of digital documentation in the world. There is yet much to do to support integration and utilization, but the promise of having a verifiable system within a context where reasonable assurance exists will change the way that ownership and accomplishments are demonstrated.

Having worked in the higher education space for a long time I can attest the value a degree can bring; however, many do not complete full degrees, and not all degrees have the same value in the employment marketplace. Hence for educational application VCs have been an integral solution on the roadmap ahead as they provide strong opportunities for students who are not on a traditional pathway. Yet, responsible use is surprisingly more difficult than just providing a DID ownership of a VC and then walking away. Rather, a larger ecosystem needs to be built around application and governance of VCs. This project does not explicitly address the issue of governance but the decisions that are being made about governance are tied to only one manner through which validation occurs. This proposal introduces a concept called Cmart contracts. The effect of which can change the way that educational, training, and employment related VCs can operate.

The current soultion is to check hash ownership against keys to determine if the individual owns the VC. That may be entirely appropriate in some or most cases. However, there may be a time when there is a need for an audit, or a stronger proof of ownership. That is where a Cmart contact would come in. As the title indicates, this type of contract is a mix between a smart contract and a credential validation. When an audit is needed then an individual can test ownership and the result will be a new validation contract that increases the value of the credential.

The effect of this approach has multiple layers. First of all there is proof of ownership, that is not new. Secondly, there is an increase in the value of the credential. Currently all VCs look and manifest at the same level. However, we know that some have more utility than others. So where is that data be captured and leveled? The answer is that it currently isn't. A Cmart contract reissues validation and then incorporates the increased utility into the credential itself. In this way it essentially gets a +1 since it is being utilized. Thirdly, the ecosystem is heavily unbalanced towards issuers. Issuers build, provide, and maintain credentials without any added value. A format where Cmart validation leads to a distribution of gas and protocol fees changes the balance in more equitable ways across the system.

Once built this is how we anticipate utilization. A company is looking to hire a new tow truck driver. They receive interest from an applicant who says that he can handle heavy tow loads and has years of experience. The company owner then asks for his credentials. The driver then provides them from his DID through SSI interfaces and the owner can see that the driver holds 4 certified credentials (Heavy 1, Heavy 2, Hazardous Transport, and Mindful Communication). The owner only cares about Heavy 2 and Hazardous Transportation so he choses to use a Cmart contract to validate both of these credentials.

Ownership is proved through cryptography and a fee is collected for the process. For this exercise we can say 10 ADA. From that point 1.5 ADA go directly to the owner of the credential and the re-issuance of the VC provides a +1 for the credential. The issuer then receives 2 ADA and the issuer receives a +1 for producing VC that are being utilized. The miners and validators receive 5 ADA for completing their work. The governance ecosystem DAO receives 2.5 ADA for ecosystem support. The key work is the re-issuance of the VC with both pedigree and also layered validation.

As can be seen, there are many larger questions that need to be considered using this approach. But at this point in time, a Cmart contract doesn't exist and we would like to build one to see if it can work. We feel as if working with the Cardashift community will help us to understand how to implement Cmart contracts and they can help us build capacity for proof of concept and viability.

[IMPACT] Please describe how your proposed solution will address the Challenge that you have submitted it in.

VC validation currently is not balanced in the education and training space. This solution can provide balance, but can also be monetized by issuers and owners. This provides a responsible scaling opportunity that holds true to the democratized approach of educational VCs while allowing for an inflow of resources to sustain the ecosystem.

Cardashift is dedicated to solving social issues including education. VCs are both an extension of democratized education, but in some respects are the ends that justify the means for students. The experience of Cardashift in this space will help us move forward with equity in mind and responsibly within the bigger picture.

[IMPACT] What are the main risks that could prevent you from delivering the project successfully and please explain how you will mitigate each risk?

The main risks that may have an impact on the success of this project tie to utilization. Right now, there is very little adoption of VCs that come from higher education institutions and also from other issuers because of the difficultly associated with utility. VCs represent a fantastic idea, but the infrastructure is difficult to manage and there are very few engaging platforms on which to manifest and use VCs.

A high secondary risk is related to security. Since VCs are meant to be inherently robust towards security vulnerabilities we need to further assure that the ecosystem cannot be gamed or manipulated in negative ways. The value of some of the VCs being held in custodial wallets are directly tied to employment opportunities and professional livelyhood. Loss of a credential or to see the ecosystem manipulated could have catastrophic impacts individuals.

Finally governance stands as a risk. There is principle work being completed on VC governance and there is much more to do in this area. In some cases the technology has outpaced policies. That will be a difficult problem to tackle down the road; however, a strong VC CMRT validation contract can help inform the governance work ahead.

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide a detailed plan, including timeline and key milestones for delivering your proposal.

Week 1 -3:

Begin building Cmart contracts

Week 2:

Development of data index from Tow America

Week 4-5:

Test Cmart contracts

Week 4-6:

Engineer input and review changes

Week 7-8:

Test production

Week 9-10:

Prepare report out to Catalyst Community

Week 11-16:

Present on Outcome to Catalyst Community

Week 16+:

Continue hard work, but celebrate along the way!!

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide a detailed budget breakdown.

Item

Budgeted cost per unit

Total Cost

1) Development

$45 per hour @ 100 hours

$4,500

2) Senior Engineer Consultation

$90 per hour @ 25 hours

$2,250

3) Project Management 

$34 per hour @ 150 hours

$5,100

4) Integration of data from Tow America and CCI which includes data scrubbing, validation and VC publishing.

$4,670 total

$4,670

Estimated Total Cost:

$16,520 USD

Any expenditure above these category delegations will be assumed by the writer of this propsoal.

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide details of the people who will work on the project.

Development will be handled through contract with Cardano blockchain specialists who have development skill. This staffing is To Be Determined and will be contracted.

Senior Engineer Consultation will be handled by a senior technical executive who has 10 years worth of experience in the digital credential space. Currently this individual has authored whitepapers and has been integral in building capacity for VCs though DID work. The consultation work completed here will be to ensure project roadmap and product viability once test contracts are built. This individual has deep knowledge of W3c solutions and has strong programing and technical skills. They have asked not to be named until/unless funding is provided.

Project management will come at the hands of a well seasoned leader within the open credential and VC space, Andrew Fisher. He has been involved in this work for almost a decade and he currently leads projects for the state of New Hampshire, US, another statewide repository effort in Arkansas, US, and is an advisor on a governing board that is building a large VC ecosystem in the southwest. He has 20 years experience in higher education and c-level administration. He has authored whitepapers and is a regular presenter at national conferences. He was a part of the innagural Plutus Pioneers program and is a strong supporter of responsible use of VCs and the sustainable approaches found readily among the Cardano community. He and Matt Ross (below) started the world's first NFT Title marketplace in the ecosystem before the rest of the world caught on. While stronger solutions found purchase, the claim of first to launch still is a title that they gladly hold!

A project needs to have a real world use case to determine effect. As such, Matt Ross, CEO of Tow America will be part of this group as well. He has experience in block chain solutions, as above, and the education platform that provides a solution to towing and recovery needs are directly tied to his company and their data. Matt and Andrew are also co-owners of a small service oriented company called Credential Gateway that is working to provide over the top validation and utility to VCs that can document employee skills.

[FEASIBILITY] If you are funded, will you return to Catalyst in a later round for further funding? Please explain why / why not.

It Is hard to tell honestly. It is possible that we can build on our successes in subsequent rounds of funding should we need to. However, right now this project is focused on determining if a new type of smart contract called a Cmrt contract can provide some solutions in the VC ecosystem. Once we determine if there is an effect, then we need to know to what extent the effect will strongly support VCs. So, while I cannot rule out a second round for an extension to help us understand the effect, we are not planning on returning for a second round of funding at this point.

[FEASIBILITY] Are you or any member of your team working on any other proposals in this Fund9?

[FEASIBILITY] Are you or your team working on any other proposals from previous Funds?

[AUDITABILITY] Please describe what you will measure to track your project's progress, and how will you measure these?

Key deliverables will be tied to three milestones.

The first milestone will be to produce a functioning Cmart contract that allows for validation and monetization flow between the owner, the issuer, the validators, and the ecosystem. It is anticipated that this work will take 2 weeks, or up to 50 hours to complete.

The second milestone will be to provide the packaged solution to a senior engineer for evaluation. That individual will look for programming and data flow issues. Upon completion of review the concerns will be noted and remedied. The timeline for this is 2-3 weeks or up to an additional 50 -80 hours.

The third milestone will be to input relevant VCs from Tow America and ensure that real data can be used within the ecosystem with the effect to test with 10 actual users. It is anticipated that this will take an additional week's worth of work if there are no issues, or up to 50 hours. If there are issues, then this project could last an additional 3 more weeks as we work towards the proof of concept.

[AUDITABILITY] What does success for this project look like?

Success can be summed up in one question,

"Can we stand up a new type of validation contract that builds upon the principles of Verifiable Credentials and also provides for growth of the validation ecosystem?"

If we can, then we have succeeded!

[AUDITABILITY] Please provide information on whether this proposal is a continuation of a previously funded project in Catalyst or an entirely new one.

This submission is entirely independent and has not been tied to funding or proposals for other locations.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Rating

This work ties in directly to three UN Development Goals:

Number 4: Quality Education

Number 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

Number 9: Industry Innovation and Infrastructure