@synap-core/cli 1.8.0 → 1.11.0

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/08-abstract-fields.md

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+# Field-by-field guide: SCF Abstract phase
+
+The SCF Project Abstract sheet has twelve fields plus Contact Infos. This guide walks each one, with the panel intent behind the field, the common mistakes, and the winning structure.
+
+## Q1 Project Title
+
+**Panel intent:** an immediate visual identifier; reviewers see this first.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Generic naming with category words ("Stellar Fintech OS", "Soroban Engine"), see rejection pattern 3.
+- Brand collision with major unrelated companies, see rejection pattern 4.
+- Typos and formatting inconsistencies (Antevorta vs Antevorte; GRINDY.FUN vs Grindy).
+
+**Winning structure:** specific, brandable, short, no category words, no collision. Run a Google search before submitting.
+
+## Q2 Description (1000 chars max)
+
+**Panel intent:** the elevator pitch. The single most important field in the Abstract.
+
+**Required elements:**
+1. The product in one sentence (what, for whom).
+2. Why Stellar specifically (the economic or technical argument that other chains cannot match).
+3. Traction proof of execution (numbers, named clients, recognitions).
+4. Day-1 distribution (who already wants this).
+5. Open-source signal if applicable.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- No mention of Stellar in Q2 (Antevorta did this, only mentioning Stellar in Q6).
+- Vague "Why Stellar" (generic "speed and low fees") that could apply to Solana or Polygon.
+- Earn-to-X language that triggers rejection pattern 10.
+- Token launch mention without regulatory framing.
+- Failing to surface verifiable credibility signals (recognitions, ecosystem partners).
+
+**Winning template:**
+```
+[Project Name] is [the specific positioning], serving [specific customer segment].
+
+The product: [what we build in one specific sentence].
+
+Why Stellar: [specific economic or technical argument that EVM/Solana cannot match].
+
+Traction: [specific numbers, specific named clients or recognitions].
+
+Day-1 distribution: [specific channels, named partners].
+```
+
+Aim for 900-980 characters; do not leave more than 50 characters of slack.
+
+## Q3 Project Category
+
+**Choices:** Application, Developer Tooling, Infrastructure, Financial Protocol.
+
+**Panel intent:** routes the dossier to the right reviewer pool.
+
+**Guidance:**
+- B2B marketplace, gaming, consumer app → Application.
+- Indexer, IDE, SDK, Testing tool → Developer Tooling.
+- Bridge, RPC, Oracle, Wallet → Infrastructure.
+- Yield vault, lending, AMM, RWA tokenization, stablecoin → Financial Protocol.
+
+When in doubt, pick the closest match. "Financial Protocol" is the strongest signal for regulated finance dossiers; "Application" for everything consumer-facing.
+
+## Q4 Traction (1000 chars max)
+
+**Panel intent:** "is this real?" The single field where you remove the "this might be vaporware" objection.
+
+**Required elements:**
+1. Live URLs (website, X, GitHub, Discord).
+2. Live metrics (revenue, users, transactions, volume, MRR).
+3. Named clients or partners (with signed LOIs if available; "in discussions with X" is weaker but better than nothing).
+4. Regulatory milestones if applicable (filed dossiers, audits passed, certifications).
+5. Industry recognitions (French Tech, ControlTick, Future of Sport laureate, Y Combinator, etc.).
+6. Founder track record bullet points (verifiable past shipped products).
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Vanity metrics only (TikTok views without conversions).
+- Vague "in discussions with X" without naming X.
+- Missing verifiable URLs.
+- No mention of recognitions even when they exist (Tickie had French Tech Tremplin, ControlTick, Future of Sport, all absent from their Abstract).
+
+**Winning template:**
+```
+PRODUCT (live):
+- URL: ...
+- X: ...
+- GitHub: ...
+- Metric 1, Metric 2, Metric 3.
+
+PIPELINE:
+- Named client 1 (status: signed LOI / discussions).
+- Named client 2.
+
+PARTNERS (named, regulated):
+- Partner 1 (credentials).
+- Partner 2 (credentials).
+
+REGULATORY:
+- Framework: [Art L.411-2 CMF / MiFID II / etc.].
+- Filing: [PSCA AMF, dossier filed April 2026].
+
+TEAM (with verifiable claims):
+- Founder track records summary.
+
+RECOGNITIONS:
+- French Tech / Y Combinator / similar.
+```
+
+## Q5 Website URL
+
+**Panel intent:** verification.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Missing https:// prefix.
+- Trailing slash inconsistencies.
+- URL points to a landing page with no real product info.
+
+**Winning structure:** https://yourdomain.com or https://yourdomain.com/en for international audiences.
+
+## Q6 Integration Description (1000 chars max)
+
+**Panel intent:** "do you understand Stellar?"
+
+**Required elements:**
+1. Three-phase timeline (Months 1-2, 3-4, 5-6).
+2. Specific Soroban contract names (FooBar.rs).
+3. Specific SCF Integration List items named.
+4. Why Stellar economic argument (sub-cent fees enable X loop that EVM gas would break).
+5. Open-source commitment (MIT).
+6. Supporting infrastructure clearly separated from Integration Track scope.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Generic "Soroban smart contracts" without names.
+- ERC-4626 mentioned on Stellar (Ethereum standard, not Stellar; see For Yield initial draft).
+- EURC mentioned without StellarAssetContract (SAC) wrapper context.
+- Mentioning Fireblocks, Elliptic, Certora as Integration Track items (they are not on the list).
+- No phasing.
+- No open-source commitment.
+
+**Winning template:**
+```
+[Project] uses Soroban as the [settlement / ownership / coordination] layer for [specific use case].
+
+Phase 1 (Months 1-2): [Contract1.rs and Contract2.rs core implementation, MIT open-source].
+Phase 2 (Months 3-4): [wallet onboarding via Stellar Wallets Kit + Passkey Kit + Privy].
+Phase 3 (Months 5-6): [secondary mechanisms, mainnet, ecosystem integrations].
+
+Why Stellar: [per-transaction economic argument]. On EVM each [action] would cost [$X], breaking unit economics for [scale]. Stellar's sub-cent fees and 5-second finality close the loop.
+
+Architecture sourced from [N] official SCF Integration List items: [Item1, Item2, Item3].
+
+Supporting infrastructure (not Integration Track scope): [Fireblocks for X, Elliptic for Y, Certora audit covered by LaunchKit credit].
+```
+
+## Q7 Track
+
+**Choices:** Integration Track or Open Track.
+
+**Guidance:**
+- Integration Track: dossier extends or wraps existing primitives (Stellar Wallets Kit, Privy, Anchor Platform, Soroswap, etc.). This is most dossiers.
+- Open Track: dossier develops a net-new primitive not in the ecosystem (a new oracle, a new bridge architecture, a confidential-payments protocol).
+
+When in doubt, Integration Track is the safer choice. Open Track invites more "is this really net-new?" scrutiny.
+
+## Q8 Thumbnail (mandatory)
+
+**Spec:** 1200x630 px PNG or JPG.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Field left empty. This is sometimes single-handedly fatal: "Information Collection" status (rejection pattern 11) results.
+- Generic logo with no product hint.
+
+**Winning structure:** split-screen with the product on one side and the Stellar primitive (contract, USDC, USDC vault) on the other, with the project title and "Powered by Stellar" tagline.
+
+If the client has an og-image.png already deployed on their website, that asset can usually be reused at the correct dimensions.
+
+## Q9 Submitter type
+
+**Choices:** Entity, Individual, Team of individuals.
+
+**Guidance:**
+- Entity: if a legal entity (SAS, Ltd, Corp) is registered. The panel will run KYB.
+- Individual: if the project is led by a single doxxed founder without a legal entity.
+- Team of individuals: if multiple founders without a registered entity.
+
+Verify the legal entity name and registry number (e.g., RCS Paris for French SAS) and add it to Q10. The panel checks.
+
+## Q10 Team description (2000 chars max)
+
+**Panel intent:** "who are you?"
+
+**Required elements per founder:**
+1. Full name (no handles alone).
+2. Role (CEO, COO, CTO, etc.).
+3. Verifiable LinkedIn URL (https://www.linkedin.com/in/...) with the slug exactly matching their profile.
+4. For CTO: GitHub URL.
+5. Concrete experience (named companies, specific years, specific roles). Vague "experience in finance" is weaker than "BNP Paribas Client Advisor 2021-2022, Nordea Asset Management Fund Reporting Q1-Q3 2025".
+6. Notable recognitions or achievements (IMC Quant Trading Top 0.1 percent, French Tech Tremplin laureate, Bitget COO Apprentice, Y Combinator alum).
+
+Plus:
+7. Board advisors with sector expertise (especially valuable for industries the founders don't directly come from).
+8. Legal entity reference (Company SAS, RCS [number]).
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Founder identified only by handle (Pattern 1 trigger).
+- Missing LinkedIn URLs.
+- Missing GitHub for CTO.
+- Vague experience claims.
+- Overselling experience the LinkedIn does not back.
+- Missing advisors when the team is junior.
+- Missing the entity legal reference.
+
+**Winning template:**
+```
+[First Last], CEO and Co-founder ([city, country])
+LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/handle/
+[X / Twitter: @handle if any]
+Education: [SKEMA / specific schools].
+Experience: [specific named companies, specific roles, specific years].
+Recognitions: [Top 0.1 percent IMC Quant Trading Competition / equivalent].
+Owns at [Project]: [specific responsibilities].
+
+[Same for each co-founder.]
+
+Advisors (if applicable):
+[Specific named advisors with sector expertise].
+
+Company: [Project] SAS (RCS [city] [number]), headquartered in [country].
+Website: [URL] | X: [URL]
+```
+
+## Q11 Number of team members
+
+**Guidance:** the number must match the count of distinct named people in Q10.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Q11 says 5 but Q10 lists only 3 (creates a "where are the other 2?" objection).
+
+**Winning structure:** explicit alignment between Q10 and Q11. If listing 3 distinct people, write 3.
+
+## Q12 Team Discord usernames
+
+**Guidance:** comma-separated, no slashes (the instruction explicitly says "separated by comma"). Verify all listed usernames are active on the SCF Discord.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Slash separator instead of comma (Antevorta did this).
+- Listing usernames not yet active on the SCF Discord.
+
+## Cross-field consistency checks
+
+Before submitting:
+
+1. Project title same in Q1 Abstract and Q1 Build (if both phases active).
+2. URL with https:// prefix and same form everywhere.
+3. Team count in Q11 matches distinct people in Q10.
+4. Discord usernames in Q12 match the team members in Q10.
+5. LOIs or named clients in Q4 match the entities referenced in Q6.
+6. Twitter handle in Contact Infos matches Twitter handle on the project website.
+7. Same legal entity name (Antevorta SAS) in Q9, Q10, and any other field that mentions it.

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/09-build-fields.md

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+# Field-by-field guide: SCF Build phase
+
+The Application Build sheet has seventeen fields. This document walks each one, with the panel intent, the common mistakes, and the winning structure.
+
+The Build phase is where most of the budget conversation happens. It is more technically rigorous than the Abstract. Empty fields and inconsistencies are punished here.
+
+## Q1 Project Title
+
+Same as Abstract Q1. Keep identical between Abstract and Build (no drift).
+
+## Q2 Submission Title (max 40 chars)
+
+**Panel intent:** a unique handle for this submission, different from the project name, focused on what the funding builds.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Same as project title (defeats the purpose).
+- Generic ("Stellar Integration").
+- Too long, gets truncated.
+
+**Winning examples:**
+- "Stellar-Native Yield Vault for EU DeFi" (For Yield)
+- "Green Bond Settlement on Soroban" (Rebond)
+- "EU MiCA Capital Layer for Soroban DeFi"
+- "Stellar-Native Onchain Dungeon RPG" (Solar Braves)
+- "Stellar Campaign Rails for Grindy"
+
+## Q3 One Sentence Description (max 130 chars)
+
+**Panel intent:** the elevator pitch in one breath.
+
+**Format SCF recommends:** "Develops/Offers/Gives [defined offering] to help/support [defined audience] [solve problem] with [secret sauce]."
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Too long (gets truncated).
+- Generic verbs ("creates a platform").
+- Uses pattern-matching vocabulary (gamified, earn, click-RPG) that triggers rejection patterns.
+
+**Winning examples:**
+- "Builds the first French MiCA-regulated DeFi yield vault on Stellar, channelling licensed EU capital into Soroban via DeFindex." (For Yield, 124 chars)
+- "Tokenizes EU green bonds on Stellar, settling coupon and redemption flows automatically via Soroban for mid-market issuers." (Rebond, 122 chars)
+
+## Q4 Project URL
+
+Same as Abstract Q5. If the project is live on another chain, this URL points to that live product as proof of execution.
+
+## Q5 Code URL
+
+**Panel intent:** verifiable engineering capability.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- "TBD" or "will be created by friday", sometimes fatal.
+- Private repo URL the panel cannot access.
+- Empty field for a CTO-led submission.
+
+**Winning structure:** public GitHub URL with at minimum a README, MIT license, and scaffold of the planned contracts. Shipping a minimal testnet deploy before submission lifts the dossier significantly (we recommend this for every Build submission).
+
+## Q6 Video URL (mandatory)
+
+**Panel intent:** elevator pitch in motion. Under 3 minutes, YouTube or Vimeo, 16:9.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Empty field. Pre-screen rejects the submission before panel review.
+- Slideshow-only (no live demo).
+- Too long.
+- Bad audio.
+
+**Winning 5-segment script:**
+- 0:00 to 0:30 Hook: founder on camera names the project, the traction, and the proposal.
+- 0:30 to 1:00 Problem: what the dossier addresses.
+- 1:00 to 2:00 Live demo: CTO shows the actual testnet contract on Stellar Expert with a real transaction hash. This single move converts the video from liability to asset.
+- 2:00 to 2:35 Team and traction: named cofounders, named clients or LOIs, recognitions.
+- 2:35 to 3:00 Closer: budget, tranches, mainnet target.
+
+Production time: 6 to 8 hours after the testnet contract is shipped.
+
+## Q7 Soroban
+
+**Choices:** Yes / No / "Maybe in the future, but not in this submission".
+
+**Guidance:** Yes if the dossier uses Soroban contracts. If unsure, Yes is the safe choice for any contract-based dossier.
+
+## Q8 Product and Services (multi-paragraph)
+
+**Panel intent:** what is built, in detail, with the Stellar role and the impact for each component.
+
+**Required structure per component:**
+1. Name and short description.
+2. Stellar use: which specific Stellar primitive or SCF Integration List item.
+3. Impact: how this changes the project.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Generic "Soroban contracts" without naming them.
+- Listing planned features but no Stellar mapping.
+- Mentioning items not on the Integration List as if they were (Fireblocks, Wirex, Elliptic).
+- Earn-to-X language.
+
+**Winning template:**
+```
+This submission funds [the specific scope].
+
+1. [Component 1 name]
+   Description: [what it does].
+   Stellar use: [specific Soroban contract, specific Integration List item].
+   Impact: [how this changes the project or the ecosystem].
+
+[Repeat for each component, 3 to 6 components total.]
+
+Supporting institutional infrastructure (NOT funded by this grant): [Fireblocks for X, Certora audit covered by Stellar LaunchKit credit at Tranche 2 review].
+```
+
+## Q9 Traction Evidence
+
+Same panel intent as Abstract Q4 but with more space and more recent updates. Add: any new pilot signed, any new recognition, any team additions, any onchain proof from the prior Abstract phase.
+
+## Q10 Technical Architecture (mandatory)
+
+**Panel intent:** "do you have a credible engineering plan?"
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Empty field.
+- Generic Google Doc that is restricted access (panel cannot view).
+- One-paragraph description instead of a diagram.
+
+**Winning structure:** public Notion page or GitHub markdown with:
+1. C4 Level 1 (System Context): users to frontend to backend to Stellar network.
+2. C4 Level 2 (Containers): named Soroban contracts plus wallet adapter plus indexer plus frontend modules.
+3. Data flows for each major operation (issuance, settlement, redemption, etc.).
+4. Integration points with named SCF Integration List items.
+5. Security model (pause logic, upgrade pattern, audit plan).
+
+Reference benchmark: Sorobanhooks TA (cited in SCF guidance) shows the expected level of detail. Effort 4 to 6 hours for an experienced CTO.
+
+## Q11 SCF Build Tranche Deliverables (intro)
+
+**Panel intent:** how the team thinks about money.
+
+**Winning structure:**
+```
+This submission requests [$X], structured as 3 equivalent tranches of [$X/3] each.
+
+Budget scope: [specific dev work funded].
+
+Out of scope (NOT funded): marketing, paid distribution, user acquisition, creator campaigns, Certora audit (covered by Stellar LaunchKit credit at Tranche 2 review).
+
+Budget anchored on [Named Past Winner] (SCF #X, $XK awarded) which had a comparable profile of [team size] + [contract scope].
+```
+
+The phrase "NOT funded by this grant" must appear. It is one of the most effective rejection-pattern prevention signals.
+
+## Q12 Tranche 1 (MVP)
+
+**Format per deliverable:**
+- Brief description.
+- How to measure completion (verifiable evidence).
+- Estimated date.
+- Budget.
+
+**Recommended count:** 2 to 3 deliverables per tranche.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Vague completion criteria ("the contract is built").
+- No reviewer evidence cited.
+- Budget too tight for the deliverable.
+
+**Winning template per deliverable:**
+```
+Deliverable [N]: [Specific Soroban contract or feature name]
+
+Description: [what the team does in this deliverable].
+
+Measure of completion: [contract deployed to testnet with verifiable address X], [test suite Y passing], [walkthrough video Z]. Reviewer evidence: [testnet contract IDs, transaction hashes, GitHub PRs].
+
+Estimated date: T+[N] weeks.
+Budget: [$amount].
+```
+
+## Q13 Tranche 2 (Testnet)
+
+Same format as Q12, with deliverables focused on testnet end-to-end flows. Tranche 2 unlocks the Stellar LaunchKit audit credit.
+
+Common high-risk items: "Genesis testing with community" can be misread as marketing-adjacent. Reframe as "internal QA + automated test coverage" to keep it clearly dev work.
+
+## Q14 Tranche 3 (Mainnet)
+
+Same format. The last deliverable is the right place to add quantified mainnet metrics: "X mainnet transactions, Y wallets connected, $Z TVL". Quantified targets give the panel something to verify at the final tranche review.
+
+## Q15 Budget Total
+
+**Format:** "$XXX,XXX".
+
+Use the budget table in `reference/06-budget-benchmarks.md`. Always sub-max ($150K).
+
+## Q16 Go-To-Market Plan
+
+**Panel intent:** "will anyone actually use this?"
+
+**Required elements:**
+1. Specific distribution channels (named partners, named B2B segments).
+2. Conversion path from awareness to first transaction.
+3. The grant note: explicitly say the grant funds dev work only, marketing self-funded.
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Vague TAM phrasing.
+- Listing community campaigns or creator activations without flagging that the grant does not fund them.
+
+**Winning structure:**
+```
+Phase 1: [B2B sales motion or partner-led distribution, named channels].
+Phase 2: [product-led acquisition, named user segments].
+Phase 3: [scale through ecosystem partnerships].
+Phase 4: [international expansion].
+
+Grant note: the SCF grant funds product development only. Marketing, paid distribution, content creator campaigns, AMA hosts, and community rewards are self-funded by [the project] via [existing revenue / fundraising round / partner economics]. No SCF funds are used for paid user acquisition.
+```
+
+The grant note is what blocks the rejection pattern of "budget misuse".
+
+## Q17 Success Criteria
+
+**Panel intent:** how the team and the panel will know this worked.
+
+**Required structure:** three-tier (MVP, Testnet, Mainnet) plus ecosystem impact plus business impact plus long-term vision.
+
+**Winning template:**
+```
+MVP success (Tranche 1):
+- [specific technical milestones].
+- [specific product milestones].
+
+Testnet success (Tranche 2):
+- [specific testnet flow milestones].
+- [Certora audit completed via Stellar LaunchKit credit].
+
+Mainnet success (Tranche 3):
+- [specific mainnet deployment milestones].
+- Quantified mainnet activity: [X wallets, Y transactions, $Z TVL].
+
+Ecosystem impact:
+- [first-of-its-kind primitive in the ecosystem].
+- [USDC or EURC adoption uplift].
+- [open-source primitive forkable by N other studios].
+
+Business impact:
+- [revenue or AUM trajectory].
+- [client acquisition trajectory].
+
+Long-term vision:
+- [post-grant continuity].
+```
+
+## The 5 most common Build-phase mistakes
+
+In order of frequency:
+
+1. **Q5 Code URL or Q6 Video URL or Q10 Architecture left empty.** Pre-screen rejection.
+2. **Inconsistency between Abstract and Build.** Contract names, project category, distribution claims that don't match.
+3. **Vague deliverables.** "Build the contract" without verifiable evidence per deliverable.
+4. **Budget mismatched with scope.** Maximum ask with single-contract scope.
+5. **Missing grant note in Q16.** Reviewers default to suspicion about marketing budget misuse.

package/templates/skills/stellar-scf-grants-advisor/reference/10-corpus-winners.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+# Corpus winners: detailed profiles of past SCF awards
+
+This catalog of past SCF Build Award winners is the empirical anchor for every recommendation we make. Use specific winners by name when communicating with clients.
+
+## SCF #42 winners
+
+### The Signal, $121,000
+
+- **Founders:** Samir Touinssi (CEO, Arch Consulting), Leo Leung (COO, Imperial Physics, Orichal Partners quant researcher).
+- **Category:** B2B marketplace with Soroban escrow.
+- **Track:** Integration Track.
+- **Contract:** DealEscrow.rs with Atomic Splits payout logic.
+- **SCF Integration List items used:** Stellar SDK, Freighter and Albedo wallets.
+- **Profile:** 2 cofounders fully doxxed, prior product on Stripe Connect (50+ verified service providers), pivot to Soroban escrow for B2B settlement.
+- **Why it won:** Pattern A (doxxed team) + Pattern B (named Soroban primitive) + Pattern C (ecosystem integrations) + Pattern E (sub-max budget) + clear B2B distribution.
+- **Use as anchor for:** B2B marketplaces, escrow protocols, B2B settlement infrastructure, dossiers at $115K-$125K.
+
+### Bando, $75,000
+
+- **Category:** RWA real estate Mexico.
+- **Track:** Integration Track.
+- **Profile:** doxxed team with named brokerage partner in Mexico, named Mexican real-estate pilot.
+- **Why it won:** narrow scope, specific pilot, regulated partner named, sub-max budget.
+- **Use as anchor for:** RWA dossiers with single-country focus, dossiers at $75K-$90K.
+
+## SCF #41 RFP winners
+
+### Latch + KMP, RFP compliance award
+
+- **Category:** C-Address compliance tooling for Stellar.
+- **Profile:** compliance tooling for the Soroban ecosystem.
+- **Why they won:** RFP fit was clear, compliance is a high-priority category for SDF.
+- **Use as anchor for:** compliance tooling, audit trail infrastructure, KYC integration projects.
+
+### Orion + OctoPos, DeFi Positions API RFP
+
+- **Category:** DeFi positions API for Soroban.
+- **Profile:** open data API for tracking DeFi positions across Stellar protocols.
+- **Why they won:** RFP fit, ecosystem-wide value.
+- **Use as anchor for:** indexer-style projects.
+
+### Helix Labs, Reactor Trade vertical
+
+- **Category:** Trading infrastructure.
+- **Profile:** same co-founder as the project that lost in the same round (Reactor Trade), winner restructured to win.
+- **Use as a comeback case** when a client lost a prior round with the same team.
+
+### Rumble Fish, Block Explorer RFP
+
+- **Category:** Soroban Block Explorer.
+- **Profile:** technical depth in explorer infrastructure.
+- **Use as anchor for:** block explorer or observability dossiers.
+
+### OBSRVR Prism, Block Explorer
+
+- **Category:** Soroban Block Explorer.
+- **Profile:** technical observability layer.
+
+## SCF #40 winners
+
+### TheXBank, $89,500
+
+- **Category:** Africa banking infrastructure.
+- **Profile:** doxxed team, country pilot named, banking infrastructure on Stellar.
+- **Why it won:** real product, doxxed team, sub-max budget.
+- **Use as anchor for:** Africa or emerging-market banking dossiers at $80K-$100K.
+
+## Prior-round ecosystem winners (not exhaustive)
+
+These are SCF-funded projects from earlier rounds. They are typically referenced in newer dossiers as integration targets, not budget anchors.
+
+### DeFindex
+
+- **Category:** Yield aggregator middleware for Stellar.
+- **Built by:** Palta Labs.
+- **Used by:** For Yield (as allocator routing layer), Grindy (as campaign routing layer).
+- **Notable:** on the SCF Integration List, signals SDF's appetite for DeFi middleware.
+
+### Blend v2
+
+- **Category:** Lending protocol on Soroban.
+- **Used by:** For Yield, Grindy, others.
+- **Notable:** lending pool primitive, on the SCF Integration List.
+
+### Aquarius
+
+- **Category:** Stellar DEX with ~$40M TVL.
+- **Used by:** many dossiers as LP routing target.
+- **Notable:** on the SCF Integration List.
+
+### Soroswap
+
+- **Category:** DEX aggregator on Soroban.
+- **Built by:** Palta Labs.
+- **Used by:** most dossiers as DEX routing layer.
+- **Notable:** on the SCF Integration List.
+
+## Targets in flight (not yet awarded)
+
+These are dossiers The Arch Consulting is actively advising. They serve as updated budget benchmarks for new dossiers in the same category.
+
+### Rebond, target $132,000 (SCF #44)
+
+- **Category:** Green bond tokenization on Soroban.
+- **Founders:** Manuel Vigier (CEO, ex-Credit Agricole + Amarenco 1+ GW), Bertrand Lagarde (CTO, multi-chain tokenization platform built).
+- **Contracts:** GreenBondToken.rs, KYCWhitelist.rs, CouponDistributor.rs.
+- **Traction:** 4 LOIs signed (LANGA International, Enervivo, Next Solar, Valorem) representing €30M pipeline, 2 distribution partners (Black Manta BaFin, Brickken DORA).
+- **Use as anchor for:** RWA bond tokenization, dossiers at $125K-$135K with named LOIs.
+
+### For Yield, target $144,000 (SCF #44)
+
+- **Category:** Regulated DeFi yield vault.
+- **Founders:** 11-person team with Quentin Hopp (ex-AXA Wealth Services), Julien Daubert (HEC, 10H11), Saturnin Paulet (Crypto and Macro 35K subscribers).
+- **Contracts:** YieldVault.rs, PerfFeeModule.rs, EURC SAC wrapper.
+- **Traction:** PSCA AMF dossier filed April 2026, EP simplifie filed parallel, ACCEIS audit passed, 50 HNW clients onboarded with €7-8M AUM.
+- **Use as anchor for:** regulated DeFi yield, dossiers at $135K-$145K with regulatory filing.
+
+### Solar Braves, target $121K-$132K (SCF #44 in flight)
+
+- **Category:** Stellar-native risk-progression dungeon RPG.
+- **Studio:** AveForge (live game RPS on MegaETH, 1100+ paying users, $25K revenue).
+- **Team:** Gabriel Pires (CEO), Simone Mancini (COO), Tudor Stomff (Tech Lead, Bountyhive 100k + HYVE 80M USD peak + Codemelt 30+ projects), Alexandru (Frontend / Blockchain, 5+ years EVM/Solana/MultiversX, Bucharest Hackathon winner), Vitalii Molokanov (Art Director, Bloomtown shipped credit).
+- **Use as anchor for:** Stellar-native consumer games, dossiers at $121K-$132K.
+
+### Tickie, target $130K-$145K (SCF #44 in flight)
+
+- **Category:** B2B event ticketing with Soroban secondary market and Atomic Splits royalties.
+- **Founders:** Alexandre Maiolini (CEO), Sofiane-Henri Henocq (CMO), Nidhal Sabbah (CTO).
+- **Traction:** 70+ B2B clients (sports clubs, festivals), 814K EUR GMV 2025, 30K EUR MRR, 1M EUR+ secured revenue, profitable since 2024, French Tech Tremplin laureate, ControlTick certified, Future of Sport laureate Viva Technology.
+- **Notable advisors:** Eddie Aubin (30 years in ticketing, Forum Billetterie founder), Duong Phan (Music Tech / PIMS / Ticketr).
+- **Use as anchor for:** B2B platforms with deep commercial traction extending to Stellar.
+
+## How to use this catalog
+
+When you write a review or budget recommendation, name 2 or 3 winners that match the client's profile, then use the same names in chat with the client. Specific past examples beat generic claims every time.