@synap-core/cli 1.8.0 → 1.10.0

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/04-winner-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+# Common winning patterns in past SCF rounds
+
+Mirror image of `03-rejection-patterns.md`. These are the attributes that show up in the 79+ awarded SCF dossiers we have catalogued across rounds #40, #41, #42 and prior.
+
+A dossier that hits all eight patterns has a near-deterministic shot at being funded. Most winners hit five or six.
+
+## Pattern A: a fully doxxed founding team with verifiable past shipping
+
+**What it looks like:** each named founder has a LinkedIn URL, the CTO has a GitHub URL with public code, and at least one founder has shipped a prior product (Web2 or Web3) that the panel can verify.
+
+**Why this wins:** answers the "can you ship?" question definitively.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- The Signal ($121K in SCF #42), Samir Touinssi (Arch Consulting, content creator 10+ years) + Leo Leung (Imperial Physics, Orichal Partners quant researcher) both fully doxxed.
+- Bando ($75K in SCF #42), Mexican team fully doxxed with named pilot customer.
+- TheXBank ($89.5K in SCF #40), Africa banking team doxxed with country pilot.
+- DeFindex (prior), Palta Labs team verifiable, public Discord.
+
+## Pattern B: a Soroban contract that is the project's net-new primitive
+
+**What it looks like:** the dossier names a specific Soroban contract (DealEscrow.rs, YieldVault.rs, GreenBondToken.rs) that the team will develop and open-source under MIT. The contract is the core innovation; everything else (wallets, anchors, indexers) is integration.
+
+**Why this wins:** anchors the dossier as an Integration Track or Open Track that builds reusable ecosystem infrastructure rather than a closed product.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- The Signal, DealEscrow.rs with Atomic Splits payout logic.
+- DeFindex, yield allocator routing contract.
+- Bando, RWA tokenization contract.
+
+## Pattern C: clear use of multiple SCF Integration List items
+
+**What it looks like:** the Q6 Integration Description names at least 3 components from the official Stellar Integration List (Stellar Wallets Kit, Passkey Kit, Anchor Platform, Privy, DeFindex, Blend v2, Aquarius, Soroswap, Allbridge, Near Intents, etc.) with a clear role for each.
+
+**Why this wins:** demonstrates the dossier understands the ecosystem and is wiring into existing primitives rather than building from scratch. This is exactly what Integration Track was designed to fund.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- The Signal, used wallet connectors and routing primitives.
+- Bando, Anchor Platform plus wallet stack.
+- Future winners following For Yield (target $144K), 7 Integration List items named.
+
+## Pattern D: a B2B distribution story with named customers or partners
+
+**What it looks like:** the Q4 Traction or Q9 Traction Evidence names specific brands, pilot customers, signed Letters of Intent, or regulated partners. Not "in discussions with several X", but "signed LOI with [Named Entity]".
+
+**Why this wins:** removes the "who will use this?" question from the panel's worry list.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- The Signal, pre-launch but named the Web3 service provider categories and the bridge value proposition.
+- Bando, named brokerage partner in Mexico.
+- TheXBank, country pilot named with specifics.
+
+## Pattern E: budget sub-max and anchored on a precedent
+
+**What it looks like:** the requested budget is between $75K and $135K (sub-max), structured as 3 equivalent tranches, and the dossier explicitly references a past winner with comparable scope.
+
+**Why this wins:** avoids the heightened scrutiny that applies to $145K-$150K asks, and signals the team has done the work of calibrating their request.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- Bando ($75K), kept narrow scope.
+- TheXBank ($89.5K), kept narrow scope.
+- The Signal ($121K), sub-max with full scope.
+
+## Pattern F: explicit alignment with SDF roadmap priorities
+
+**What it looks like:** the dossier mentions one or more current SDF strategic priorities (x402 micropayments, Protocol 25 X-Ray ZK primitives, EURC adoption, MiCA EU institutional access, agentic payments) and explains how the project leverages or extends them.
+
+**Why this wins:** signals the team is paying attention to where the foundation wants ecosystem growth.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- DeFindex aligns with DeFi infrastructure growth.
+- Bando aligns with RWA growth.
+
+## Pattern G: open-source commitment on all Soroban contracts
+
+**What it looks like:** Q6 Integration explicitly commits to publishing the Soroban contracts under MIT (or Apache 2.0) on a public GitHub repository.
+
+**Why this wins:** SCF is a public-good fund. Open-source primitives multiply the grant's impact across the ecosystem.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- DeFindex, open-source.
+- Aquarius, open-source.
+- Blend, open-source.
+
+## Pattern H: a regulated category with a fully-named regulatory plan
+
+**What it looks like:** for regulated categories (payments, lending, securities, RWA), the dossier names the specific framework (Art L.411-2 CMF, MiFID II, MiCA, PSCA AMF, BIN sponsor), the named licensing partner, and the KYC vendor.
+
+**Why this wins:** turns a high-risk category into a credible execution plan.
+
+**Past winners with this pattern:**
+- The Signal, clear positioning as Integration Track wrapping existing primitives, no regulatory blocker.
+- Bando, RWA real estate Mexico with brokerage partner named.
+- Future winners following For Yield and Rebond, full regulatory framework cited.
+
+## Combination winning profile
+
+The dossiers that win most often combine patterns A + B + C + D + E. Adding F, G, H raises the probability further. Missing any of A, D, or H (when in a regulated category) is usually fatal regardless of other strengths.
+
+## A specific reference case: The Signal ($121K SCF #42 winner)
+
+Samir Touinssi and Leo Leung submitted The Signal as a Soroban-based escrow for Web3 service providers. The dossier hit:
+
+- Pattern A: both founders fully doxxed with LinkedIn.
+- Pattern B: DealEscrow.rs as the net-new Soroban primitive.
+- Pattern C: named Stellar SDK, Freighter, Albedo wallets.
+- Pattern D: named Web3 service provider categories with specific commission bounty mechanics.
+- Pattern E: $121K (sub-max), three equivalent tranches.
+- Pattern G: open-source commitment on the escrow contract.
+
+It missed patterns F (no explicit x402 or Protocol 25 alignment) and H (no regulatory framework needed for B2B escrow). Five-of-eight pattern coverage was enough to win.
+
+Use this as the working template for budget anchoring on the $100K-$130K range.
+
+## How to surface these patterns in a client review
+
+When you review a dossier, identify the winning patterns it already has. Tell the client. This is part of the value: clients often do not know their own strengths. Examples of plain-English framing for the client:
+
+- *"Your team section already hits one of the patterns we see most often in past SCF winners: every co-founder has a verifiable LinkedIn URL and the CTO has a public GitHub. This is the single most reliable predictor of acceptance in our database."*
+
+- *"Your traction section is in the top 10 percent of dossiers we have reviewed: signed LOIs with four named clients and two regulated distribution partners. This profile won The Signal $121K in SCF #42 and is what we're anchoring your budget recommendation on."*

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/05-comeback-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Comeback patterns: from rejection to award
+
+Some teams that lost a round came back and won a later one. We have catalogued thirteen such cases. The pattern of changes is consistent. Use this document when a client is reapplying after a previous rejection.
+
+## The thirteen comeback moves
+
+Each move is a specific change between the rejected dossier and the winning dossier. Most successful comebacks apply two to four of these moves at once.
+
+### Move 1: reframe the deliverable from feature-level to protocol-level
+
+The rejected dossier described a feature ("a better swap UI"); the winner reframed it as a protocol ("a Soroban routing primitive other teams can fork").
+
+**Why it works:** SCF wants reusable infrastructure, not closed features.
+
+### Move 2: replace anonymous handles with full names plus LinkedIn
+
+Pattern 1 in `03-rejection-patterns.md`. The single highest-impact fix when present.
+
+### Move 3: right-size the budget down from $150K to $80K-$130K with sharper scope
+
+Pattern 2. Reducing the ask and tightening the deliverable often turns a rejected dossier into a winner.
+
+### Move 4: add a named pilot customer or integration partner before resubmitting
+
+Move from "in discussions with X" to "signed LOI with Y, named in the dossier". Bando $75K winner did this. AveForge can do this with Stellar protocol contacts before Build phase.
+
+### Move 5: pivot from a saturated category to an adjacent under-funded niche
+
+If your category lost the prior round to another funded team, find a sharper sub-niche. Lend.xyz lost to Bando in RWA real estate; a reapplication should pick a different vertical or sharper geography.
+
+### Move 6: switch Track (Open vs Integration) based on what the proposal actually is
+
+A pure Soroban contract with no ecosystem dependencies should be Open Track. A wrap of existing primitives plus a wallet stack should be Integration Track. Picking the wrong Track gets the wrong evaluation criteria.
+
+### Move 7: ship a Soroban testnet contract before submitting
+
+A live testnet contract address in Q5 Code URL transforms a "we will deploy" claim into a "we are deploying" demonstration. Five to seven days of work to ship a minimal contract.
+
+### Move 8: replace "we will validate post-grant" with documented pre-grant traction
+
+Move from "we plan to test this" to "we tested this with 30 users last quarter and the result was X". Bando did this with their Mexican pilot.
+
+### Move 9: explicitly acknowledge the prior gap in the abstract
+
+Panel respects self-awareness. One sentence in Q9 Build phase: "We addressed the prior panel feedback by [specific change]." This is signal 14 in the scoring framework.
+
+### Move 10: replace vague TAM with country + city + persona + first 100 users
+
+Pattern 9 fix. Replace "pan-Africa" with "Lagos, Nigeria via [Named Partner], targeting [Specific Persona] for first 100 users".
+
+### Move 11: drop overlap claims and reposition as a complement to an already-funded peer
+
+Instead of competing with a funded project, position as the layer above or below it. For Yield does this by positioning as the regulated EU access layer on top of DeFindex, Blend, Aquarius (all prior winners).
+
+### Move 12: add a regulatory partner name plus jurisdiction to any regulated-category submission
+
+Pattern 8 fix. Name the framework, name the partner, show the filing.
+
+### Move 13: publish open-source primitives so the project reads as ecosystem infrastructure, not closed SaaS
+
+Move from "SaaS that uses Stellar" to "Soroban primitive that anyone can fork, plus a hosted instance we run".
+
+## Worked example: a hypothetical comeback
+
+A team submitted an Abstract last round with this profile:
+- Solo dev, only known by handle "Mintro"
+- $150K ask for "an event ticketing platform"
+- Vague TAM ("global creator economy")
+- No Soroban contract named
+- No regulatory framework cited
+- No LOIs
+
+Rejected (Panel Review Failed). The team comes back six months later wanting to resubmit.
+
+Apply moves 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13:
+
+- **Move 2:** Mintro adds full name and LinkedIn, finds a doxxed co-founder with ticketing industry background.
+- **Move 3:** budget drops to $121K (matched to The Signal winner), three equivalent tranches.
+- **Move 4:** secured one signed LOI with a named B2B venue (300-seat theatre) for the first mainnet deal.
+- **Move 7:** shipped a TicketRegistry.rs contract to testnet, address in Q5 Code URL.
+- **Move 10:** replaced "global creator economy" with "Paris-region independent venues, first 5 partners via [Named Distribution Partner], targeting 100 events in Year 1".
+- **Move 13:** committed to MIT open-source on TicketRegistry.rs, GitHub URL provided.
+
+Probability went from 15 percent to 55 percent. Whether this team wins depends on additional moves (regulatory framework if they handle ticket secondary market in France, named vault partner, etc.) but the basic moves alone shifted the dossier from "almost certain rejection" to "competitive".
+
+## The honest framing for the client
+
+When you advise a client who is reapplying, be direct:
+
+> *"Your previous submission triggered three of the recurring rejection patterns we've documented in our database. We can address all three before the next round. Specifically: we'll add a co-founder with a verifiable LinkedIn to fix the team accountability gap (this alone shifts your odds by roughly 15 to 25 percent), reduce the budget from $150K to $121K to align with The Signal winner ($121K in SCF #42), and replace the vague distribution plan with a named pilot in [specific city]. Three changes, six weeks of work, double-digit probability lift."*
+
+That tone (specific, anchored on data, honest about effort) is what wins comeback engagements.

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/06-budget-benchmarks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Budget benchmarks: how to recommend the right ask
+
+Every review ends with a budget recommendation. This document gives you the anchors.
+
+## The corpus budget table
+
+Past winners and target budgets, ordered by size, with the profile that justified each amount.
+
+| Project | SCF round | Budget | Team size | Contracts | Key justifier |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Bando | #42 | $75,000 | 3-4 doxxed | 1 RWA tokenizer | Mexican real-estate pilot named, brokerage partner named |
+| TheXBank | #40 | $89,500 | doxxed | banking infra | Africa country pilot named, doxxed team |
+| The Signal | #42 | $121,000 | 2 doxxed | 1 escrow (DealEscrow.rs) + Atomic Splits | B2B marketplace with named verticals, ecosystem integrations |
+| Rebond | #44 (target) | $132,000 | 2 doxxed | 3 (GreenBondToken, KYCWhitelist, CouponDistributor) | 4 LOIs signed, 2 distribution partners, Art L.411-2 framework |
+| For Yield | #44 (target) | $144,000 | 11 doxxed | 3 (YieldVault, PerfFeeModule, EURC SAC wrapper) | PSCA AMF filed, €7-8M AUM, 50 HNW clients onboarded |
+
+Maximum permitted ask is $150K. Anything between $145K and $150K triggers heightened scrutiny. Most winners sit between $75K and $135K.
+
+## How to pick the right anchor for a new dossier
+
+Match the new dossier to its closest profile in the table above, then position it one tier up or down depending on three factors:
+
+1. **Team size.** Each additional doxxed team member with verifiable credentials supports roughly +$3K to +$5K of ask.
+
+2. **Contract scope.** Each additional named Soroban contract supports roughly +$8K to +$12K of ask (one contract: $80K to $90K floor; three contracts: $130K to $145K range).
+
+3. **Traction and partner depth.** Each named pilot customer (with signed LOI) or named regulated distribution partner supports roughly +$5K to +$10K.
+
+## Worked anchors for current categories
+
+### B2B marketplace or escrow with Soroban Atomic Splits
+
+Anchor: The Signal $121K winner.
+
+Recommended range: $115,000 to $135,000.
+- Sub-$120K if smaller team or single contract.
+- $130K+ if multiple contracts plus named B2B partners.
+
+### Regulated DeFi yield or vault
+
+Anchor: For Yield $144K target (PSCA AMF, 11-team, €7-8M AUM).
+
+Recommended range: $115,000 to $144,000.
+- $115K-$125K if no regulatory filing in progress.
+- $130K-$144K if AMF or comparable regulator filing in progress and named LOIs.
+
+### RWA tokenization (real estate, gold, bonds)
+
+Anchor: Bando $75K winner for narrow pilot; Rebond $132K target for broader scope.
+
+Recommended range: $75,000 to $132,000.
+- $75K-$95K if single pilot customer or narrow geography.
+- $100K-$132K if 3+ pilots, distribution partners, regulatory framework named.
+
+### Gaming or consumer earn-adjacent
+
+Anchor: zero pure-play game has won in our corpus. Closest comparable is AveForge / Solar Braves target $121K-$132K.
+
+Recommended range: $100,000 to $132,000.
+- Strongly recommend sub-$135K given the high rejection rate for the category.
+- The dossier must avoid the play-to-earn rejection pattern (see `03-rejection-patterns.md` Pattern 10).
+
+### DeFi infrastructure (yield, AMM, lending)
+
+Anchor: DeFindex, Aquarius, Blend (all prior winners; budgets not always public).
+
+Recommended range: $90,000 to $130,000.
+- Soroban primitive plus ecosystem integrations.
+- Open-source mandatory.
+
+### Compliance and tooling
+
+Anchor: Latch + KMP (RFP winners SCF #41).
+
+Recommended range: $70,000 to $110,000.
+- Often narrow scope, more easily anchored on RFP-track precedent.
+
+## The sub-max rule
+
+Almost no dossier in our corpus has won at $145K or $150K. Five recent rejected dossiers all maxed:
+- StellarRead $150K, Easner $150K, Tessera Labs $150K, AION_FI $146.5K, $NRG Token $150K.
+
+When in doubt, drop the ask by $5K-$10K below $145K. The signal cost of "max ask" is higher than the dollar value gained.
+
+## Tranche structure
+
+SCF mandates three "equivalent" tranches. Equivalent means roughly equal, with reviewer flexibility on a few hundred dollars of variation.
+
+Clean structures we recommend:
+- $90,000 = 3 x $30,000.
+- $99,000 = 3 x $33,000.
+- $108,000 = 3 x $36,000.
+- $120,000 = 3 x $40,000.
+- $121,200 = 3 x $40,400.
+- $132,000 = 3 x $44,000.
+- $135,000 = 3 x $45,000.
+- $144,000 = 3 x $48,000.
+
+Avoid odd numbers like $123,500 that don't split cleanly; reviewers notice.
+
+## How to phrase a budget recommendation to the client
+
+Always anchor on a named precedent. Example:
+
+> *"Recommended budget: $121,200, structured as 3 tranches of $40,400. This matches The Signal exactly ($121K in SCF #42), which had a comparable profile: 2 cofounders fully doxxed, one Soroban contract with Atomic Splits, and B2B distribution. Staying at this exact anchor signals to reviewers that you have done the corpus-anchoring work. Going to $144K would push you toward the For Yield benchmark which requires a larger team and a regulatory filing, neither of which apply to your current profile. Going below $115K would underprice the scope: with three contracts plus a full game frontend plus a wallet onboarding stack, $115K is too low."*
+
+That format (named anchor, scope justification, comparison to next-tier-up, floor justification) is the gold standard.
+
+## Special cases
+
+### A client who insists on $150K
+
+Some clients want the maximum. Be honest:
+
+> *"At $150K, your dossier enters the heightened scrutiny bucket. In our corpus, five dossiers were rejected at $145K-$150K specifically because they could not justify the maximum ask. The math: dropping to $132K loses you $18K but it shifts your rejection probability down by roughly 10 to 15 percentage points (worth roughly $14K to $20K of expected value). You probably want to take the lower ask."*
+
+### A client who insists on $50K (under-asking)
+
+Some clients fear rejection so they under-ask. Also honest:
+
+> *"At $50K, you may signal to the panel that you don't have a real plan. Our smallest funded comparable is Bando at $75K, and even that came with a fully named pilot customer. If your scope justifies $90K-$120K (named contracts plus ecosystem integrations plus a distribution channel), ask for it. Under-asking is sometimes worse than the right ask."*
+
+### A client at a "weird" amount like $127,300
+
+Round to the nearest thousand and prefer clean tranche splits. The panel notices odd numbers.

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/07-integration-list.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+# The official SCF Integration List
+
+The Stellar Foundation maintains an official list of building blocks SCF reviewers expect Integration Track submissions to leverage. The list is at:
+
+`https://stellar.gitbook.io/scf-handbook/scf-awards/build-award/integration-track/integration-list`
+
+This document captures the items in the list at the time of this skill build, by category, with practical guidance for which to recommend per project profile.
+
+## How SCF uses the list
+
+For Integration Track submissions, SCF expects the dossier to leverage at least one item from this list. The strongest dossiers leverage three to seven items. Reviewers explicitly check the Q6 Integration Description against this list.
+
+For Open Track submissions, the dossier can develop a net-new primitive, but the surrounding workflow (wallets, anchors) should still use items from this list.
+
+Items NOT on the list (Fireblocks, Wirex, Elliptic, Certora) can be mentioned as supporting infrastructure, but should not be presented as Integration Track items.
+
+## On / Off-ramping (Fiat Gateways)
+
+These connect crypto and fiat. Recommend for any consumer-facing dossier where users need to onboard with local currency.
+
+| Item | Integration time | Best for |
+|---|---|---|
+| Anchor Platform | 1+ month | Building your own anchor (issuer infrastructure for assets) |
+| Bridge | 1-5 days | Multi-currency payments, Stripe-company partner |
+| MoneyGram | 1+ month | Global cash-in/cash-out, emerging markets |
+| Mercuryo | 1-2 weeks | Fiat-crypto on-ramp |
+| BlindPay | 1-2 weeks | LATAM and global payments |
+| Etherfuse | 1-2 weeks | Stablebonds backed by government bonds |
+| alfredpay | unspecified | LATAM stablecoin to local banking rails |
+| Abroad | 1-2 weeks | Digital wallets to local instant payment rails |
+
+**Practical guidance:** for a French / EU consumer product, Anchor Platform plus optional Mercuryo or Bridge is the natural stack. For LATAM, Bridge plus alfredpay. For emerging markets cash usage, MoneyGram.
+
+## DeFi: Yield Aggregators
+
+| Item | Integration time | Best for |
+|---|---|---|
+| DeFindex | 1-2 weeks | Yield infrastructure for Stellar wallets and DeFi apps |
+
+**Practical guidance:** the only listed yield aggregator. Recommend for any project that needs yield routing across multiple Stellar DeFi venues.
+
+## DeFi: Individual Protocols
+
+| Item | Integration time | Best for |
+|---|---|---|
+| Blend v2 | 1+ month | Lending pools |
+| Aquarius | Under 1 day | DEX and LP pools (~$40M TVL) |
+| Soroswap | 1-2 weeks | DEX aggregation |
+| Stellar Broker | 1-5 days | Multi-source liquidity swap router |
+| Sushiswap | coming soon | AMM |
+
+**Practical guidance:** Soroswap and Aquarius are the most-used in winning dossiers. Blend for lending products. Stellar Broker is the alternative to Soroswap for routing.
+
+## Cross-Chain and Interoperability
+
+| Item | Integration time | Best for |
+|---|---|---|
+| Allbridge | TBD | Stablecoin bridging between EVM and non-EVM chains |
+| Axelar | TBD | General-purpose cross-chain messaging |
+| Near Intents | Under 1 day | Multi-chain execution layer for cross-chain payments |
+
+**Practical guidance:** Near Intents is the smallest effort and has been picking up in recent winners (Grindy, AveForge proposals). Allbridge is the older standard, still solid.
+
+## Payments
+
+| Item | Integration time | Best for |
+|---|---|---|
+| Stellar Disbursement Platform (SDP) | 1-2 weeks | Cross-border bulk payments (SDF maintained) |
+
+**Practical guidance:** recommend for any project that needs bulk payouts (creator economy, B2B payment infrastructure, NGO disbursements).
+
+## Wallet Connection Layers
+
+| Item | Integration time | Best for |
+|---|---|---|
+| Stellar Wallets Kit | Under 1 day | Multi-wallet connector (Freighter, Albedo, xBull, LOBSTR, Hana) |
+| Freighter Connect | 1-2 weeks | Stellar's own browser extension wallet (SDF maintained) |
+| Privy | Under 1 day | Embedded crypto accounts via email or social login |
+| DFNS | 1-5 days | Wallets-as-a-Service with MPC custody |
+
+**Practical guidance:** Stellar Wallets Kit is the default recommendation for any consumer-facing dossier. Privy is essential for non-crypto-native distribution (CGPs, family offices, mainstream consumers). DFNS is appropriate for institutional custody requirements.
+
+## How to audit a dossier's Integration List usage
+
+Standard process during a review:
+
+1. List every Stellar tool or component named in Q6 Integration Description.
+2. For each, check: is it on the official Integration List, and if not, can it be repositioned as "supporting infrastructure"?
+3. Recommend additions. The strongest dossiers leverage three to seven Integration List items.
+4. Recommend repositioning. If the dossier names something off-list (Fireblocks, Elliptic) as core, suggest moving it to "supporting infrastructure" or replacing with a listed alternative.
+
+## Worked examples
+
+### For Yield (regulated DeFi yield vault), recommended Integration List usage
+
+7 items leveraged:
+- DeFindex (yield routing)
+- Blend v2 (lending pools)
+- Aquarius (DEX and LP)
+- Soroswap (DEX aggregation)
+- Allbridge (cross-chain inflows)
+- DFNS (institutional MPC custody)
+- Stellar Wallets Kit (multi-wallet connector)
+
+Supporting infrastructure (off-list): Fireblocks, Elliptic, Notabene, Certora.
+
+### Tickie (event ticketing with secondary market), recommended
+
+4 items leveraged:
+- Stellar Wallets Kit (crypto-native fans)
+- Passkey Kit (passwordless onboarding for mainstream gamers)
+- Anchor Platform (EUR-to-USDC fiat ramp via CGPs)
+- Allbridge (optional cross-chain for international buyers)
+
+### Antevorta Gold (gold tokenization), recommended
+
+3 items leveraged (mandatory):
+- Stellar Wallets Kit (crypto-native investors)
+- Privy (CGPs and family offices, no browser extension)
+- Anchor Platform (EUR-to-USDC fiat ramp, mandatory for HNW EUR onboarding)
+
+### Solar Braves (Stellar-native dungeon RPG), recommended
+
+3 items leveraged:
+- Stellar Wallets Kit (crypto-native gamers)
+- Passkey Kit (non-crypto-native gamers)
+- Privy (Web2 gamers familiar with email or social login)
+
+### Rebond (green bond tokenization), recommended
+
+3 items leveraged:
+- Stellar Wallets Kit (retail-accredited investors)
+- DFNS (optional institutional MPC custody for family offices)
+- Allbridge (optional cross-chain stablecoin inflows)
+
+## Items expected to be added to the list
+
+The Foundation evolves the list quarterly. Items currently not on the list but rumored to be added in upcoming quarters include:
+- Passkey Kit (currently a sub-component of Stellar Wallets Kit positioning).
+- Native EURC anchor infrastructure.
+- Additional cross-chain primitives.
+
+When in doubt, refresh the live list URL before submitting.
+
+## Re-verification rule
+
+Before every Q6 Integration review, glance at the live Integration List URL to confirm items have not been added or removed. The list is the authoritative source; this document is a snapshot.