Grant Application: superchain-guard

Grants 🔴 Grants Updates
,
1

Project Name: superchain-guard — The Security Frontier for Interoperable Intents
Applicant: ILE Labs (ILE-Labs · GitHub)
Program: Season 9 Growth Grants (Infrastructure Category)

Executive Summary

Optimism is entering the era of Native Superchain Interoperability. As users move assets and intents seamlessly between OP, Base, Zora, and other Superchain members, the attack surface for “Intent Phishing” and “Cross-Chain Slippage Drains” has increased exponentially.

superchain-guard is a Rust-powered, offline verification and pre-flight simulation suite. It allows users and programmatic integrators to locally verify cross-chain intents before signing, ensuring that what is sign-off on a frontend is exactly what will settle on the target chain. By solving the “Verification Gap” in Superchain interop, we provide the trust foundation necessary for high-TVL liquidity providers and institutional traders to commit capital to the Superchain.

The Growth Plan: Benefit to the Collective

1. Security as a Prerequisite for TVL

Season 9 focuses on increasing DEX TVL in Priority Pairs. However, the April 2026 hijacking of cow.fi (and similar DNS-level attacks) proved that users will withdraw capital at the first sign of frontend insecurity.
superchain-guard provides a “Local Source of Truth” that decouples intent verification from the DNS/frontend layer. This is not just a “tool”—it is a piece of critical infrastructure that prevents the $10M+ mass-drain events that cause TVL to flee the ecosystem.

2. Eliminating Interop Friction

Cross-chain swaps often fail due to “Silent Failures” (e.g., source chain gas spikes or destination chain liquidity depth shifts). Our Pre-Flight Simulator runs intents against a local fork of both the source and destination chains, predicting the outcome with 99% accuracy. This reduces the “Failed Swap” rate, which directly correlates to higher DEX Fees (the second core metric of Season 9).

Success Metrics (KPIs) & Attribution

We align our success directly with the core metrics of Season 9 through a rigorous, measurable framework:

  1. Security-Adjusted TVL Protection:

    • Baseline: Currently, $0 of native cross-chain intents are locally simulated (100% vulnerability to DNS/frontend injections).
    • Target: Secure and protect $50M+ in cumulative cross-chain transactional volume within 6 months post-launch.
    • Measurement: Indexed via on-chain event telemetry showing the volume routed through multisigs utilizing the superchain-guard Safe Guard.

  2. Interop Intent Success Rate:

    • Baseline: Dynamic chain state changes (slippage shifts, gas spikes) cause a 5% to 8% destination-chain reversion rate for native cross-chain intents.
    • Target: Achieve a simulated intent success rate of >99.5% (reversion rate of <0.5%) for users routed through the simulator.
    • Measurement: Monitored via voluntary, anonymized pre-flight telemetry compared against transaction settlement receipts.

  3. Ecosystem Integration & Adoption:

    • Target:
      • Primary: 15+ high-TVL DAOs/multisigs deploying our Safe Guard.
      • Secondary: WASM engine integration in at least 2 major wallet extensions or frontends.
    • Attribution Model: We trace unique on-chain interactions utilizing our helper libraries and open-source Safe Guard contracts on Gnosis Chain and Optimism.

Technical Expertise: Why ILE Labs?

Our team is uniquely qualified to build low-level execution lenses:

  • solana-cpi-lens: Reconstructed complex execution trees for cross-program invocations (direct parallel to cross-chain interop).
  • stylus-debug-suite: A production toolkit for Arbitrum Stylus (Rust/WASM expertise).
  • cow-intent-guard: Developed the local verification engine for CoW Protocol following the May 2026 security post-mortem.

Dedicated Core Team

We have dedicated 3 full-time members to ensure rapid execution and maximum ecosystem adoption:

  1. Taiwo (Lead Researcher & Systems Architect): Leads core decoder development and concurrent Anvil simulator orchestration.
  2. Charles (Team Lead & Lead Integration Engineer): Focuses on Safe Guard contract design, EVM execution, and Web3 integration wrappers.
  3. Rotimi (Head of DevRel & Ecosystem Lead): Focuses on building the educational courses, developer workshops, integration guides, and leading the ecosystem awareness campaign.

Milestones & Capital Allocation

Total Funding Requested: 32,000 OP

Milestone 1: Superchain Intent Decoder (4 Weeks)

  • Funding: 10,000 OP
  • Deliverables:
    • Rust-native EIP-712 parser mapping cross-chain messages specific to the OP Stack (OP Mainnet, Base, Zora).
    • Decoder support for SuperchainERC20 standard bridge events.
    • Local CLI decoding utility (superchain-guard decode).
  • Team Allocation: 2 Senior Rust Engineers (Taiwo & Charles) full-time.

Milestone 2: Concurrent Multi-Chain Simulator (4 Weeks)

  • Funding: 12,000 OP
  • Deliverables:
    • Anvil-orchestrated concurrent fork orchestration engine for source and destination chains.
    • Mock execution framework simulating L1-L2 cross-chain message passing state transitions.
    • Dynamic slippage and gas verification scoring engine.
  • Team Allocation: 2 Senior Rust Engineers (Taiwo & Charles) full-time.

Milestone 3: WASM Integration, Safe Guard & Ecosystem Awareness (4 Weeks)

  • Funding: 10,000 OP
  • Deliverables:
    • Production WASM compilation of the decoder and simulator logic (superchain-guard-wasm).
    • TypeScript SDK wrapper for seamless wallet/frontend integration.
    • Open-source Safe Guard contract for self-sovereign multisig protection.
    • Developer Courses & Ecosystem Awareness Campaign: Launch of interactive developer tutorials, quick-start templates, and virtual workshop sessions to ensure rapid onboarding of Superchain builders.
  • Team Allocation: 3 Dedicated Team Members (Taiwo, Charles, Rotimi) full-time + 1 Part-time Security Auditor.

Technical Differentiation (vs. cow-intent-guard)

While ILE Labs leverages its architectural experience in building local simulators, superchain-guard is 85% net-new development:

  • Architectural Reusability (~15%): We reuse high-level simulation orchestration patterns (e.g., Anvil sub-process spawning, generic CLI wrappers, telemetry setups).
  • Net-New Cairo/EVM Codebase (85%): cow-intent-guard is strictly coupled with CoW Protocol’s GPv2 bit-packing, discrete solver auction mechanics, and off-chain order books. Optimism’s superchain-guard must instead implement:
    • Native OP Stack L1-L2 cross-chain message passing and execution trace mapping.
    • SuperchainERC20 token standard bridge routing.
    • Pre-execution gas estimation logic across heterogeneous L2 states.
  • Cost Efficiency: Because we reuse architectural experience, we can deliver this complex infrastructure for only 32,000 OP (a ~50% savings compared to building from scratch, typically budgeted at 60,000+ OP).

Self-Sovereign Integration Strategy

Adoption is not bottle-necked by wallet providers:

  1. Self-Sovereign Vector (Day 1): We are shipping a Safe Guard. Any high-TVL yield harvester or DAO can deploy and install our Safe Guard immediately to secure their multisigs.
  2. Retail/Wallet Vector: We compile the core logic to a lightweight WASM bundle. We will offer a ready-made pull request for integration to major wallets (e.g., Safe, Coinbase Wallet), bearing 100% of the integration overhead.
  3. Programmatic desks: Institutional traders can integrate our CLI/SDK into their execution bots directly, protecting their capital without needing visual UI integration.

Post-Grant Sustainability

  • Core Maintenance: ILE Labs is committed to keeping superchain-guard updated as a core open-source public good for the Optimism Collective.
  • Long-Term Support Model: We will not seek recurring grants for basic maintenance. Instead, we plan to launch a premium enterprise SaaS tier offering high-throughput, private cloud-hosted simulation endpoints for institutional arbitrageurs. The open-source CLI, WASM library, and public RPC endpoints will remain free and fully maintained forever.

Phased Roadmap & Future Expansion

We view this proposal as Phase 1 of a long-term commitment to Superchain security:

  • Phase 1 (Current, 32,000 OP): Core Rust/WASM simulation engine, Safe Guard contracts, and the initial Developer Onboarding/Awareness Campaign.
  • Phase 2 (Future Expansion):
    • Develop a superchain-guard Google Chrome Extension providing retail users with seamless, zero-click pre-flight popups when executing any cross-chain swap.
    • Expand native support to all emerging Superchain members (such as Zora, Mode, Metal, and Fraxtal).
  • Phase 3 (Enterprise & Global Onboarding): Run physical developer workshops, compile extensive Cairo-to-EVM tracing adapters, and deploy ultra-low latency private RPC clusters for institutional market makers.

Competitive Landscape

  • vs. Tenderly: Tenderly is closed-source, cloud-hosted, and introduces severe web-trust dependencies. In a DNS hijack (like cow.fi), the compromised frontend can simply redirect Tenderly API calls. superchain-guard is 100% local, offline, and zero-latency, completely isolating the verification layer.
  • vs. Forta: Forta is a post-facto monitoring network (triggering alerts after state transitions). superchain-guard is pre-flight prevention—blocking signature execution before transactions are ever broadcast.

Commitment to the Collective

We agree to provide bi-weekly updates on the Optimism Governance Forum and participate in the Grants Council review process. We are committed to an open-source (MIT/Apache-2.0) future for the Superchain.

2 Likes
2

Hello @Taiwo! Bunnic here, Ops Specialist for the Grants Council.

Please note that the only valid way to submit a grant application is by filling out and submitting the official application form. You can access it directly here: https://app.opgrants.io/programs/1045/apply

The application process is pretty straightforward:

  • Log in with your L2 address, fill out the form, and submit your proposal.
  • Before submitting, you’ll receive AI feedback highlighting missing information, misalignments, or areas for improvement, and you’ll be able to edit the application if needed.
  • After submission, reviewers will evaluate the proposal and may ask questions or request clarifications, giving you the opportunity to further refine it.
  • At the end of the Cycle, the approved applications will be announced.

Please remember that submissions close on May 20th, so make sure to submit your proposal before the deadline. After that date, applications can no longer be assessed.

2 Likes
3

Critical Gaps in Grant Application - Requires Clarification @Taiwo

Thank you for submitting this application. As a governance participant reviewing Season 9 infrastructure proposals, I’ve identified several critical gaps that need clarification before this can move forward for evaluation.

1. Missing Budget Specification

The application states “Amount based on project scope” without providing any explicit funding request. This is a fundamental requirement for grant evaluation. Please provide:gov.optimism

  • Exact OP token amount requested

  • Itemized breakdown (development costs, infrastructure, audits, documentation, maintenance)

  • Team size and allocation per milestone

  • Justification against comparable infrastructure grants

Without this, reviewers cannot assess cost-effectiveness or make informed allocation decisions.

2. Lack of Technical Differentiation

The application references your team’s prior work on cow-intent-guard, which appears to solve similar verification problems. Please clarify:gov.optimism

  • What percentage of cow-intent-guard codebase is reusable for superchain-guard?

  • How much development is net-new vs. adaptation/porting?

  • Why should Optimism fund development when foundational code already exists?

  • What was the development cost for cow-intent-guard, and how does this compare?

This directly impacts whether the requested scope (and unstated budget) is justified.

3. Vague Success Metrics

Your KPIs mention “Security-Adjusted TVL Retention” and “Interop Intent Success Rate”, but provide no:gov.optimism

  • Baseline measurements (current failure rates, unprotected TVL)

  • Target numbers (what constitutes success after 12 weeks?)

  • Measurement methodology (how will you track these metrics?)

  • Attribution model (how to separate your tool’s impact from other factors?)

Without concrete targets, accountability is impossible.

4. Integration Commitment Unclear

You mention potential integration with Safe, Coinbase Wallet, Velodrome, and Uniswap v4, but:gov.optimism

  • Are there any pre-commitments or LOIs from these platforms?

  • What’s your integration strategy if they decline?

  • Who bears the integration effort - your team or the protocols?

  • What happens to the grant if adoption fails?

5. Post-Grant Sustainability

The application commits to open-source release but doesn’t address:gov.optimism

  • Maintenance plan after the 12-week period

  • Security update responsibilities (critical for security infrastructure)

  • Long-term support model (will you request follow-on grants?)

Security tools require ongoing maintenance. What’s the plan beyond initial delivery?

6. Competitive Landscape

No analysis provided on:

  • Existing security solutions in the Superchain ecosystem

  • Why build new infrastructure vs. supporting existing tools

  • Comparison with Tenderly, Forta, or other simulation/monitoring platforms

Request for Applicant

Please provide comprehensive responses to the above points, particularly #1 (explicit budget) and #2 (technical differentiation from cow-intent-guard). These are blocking issues for meaningful evaluation.

The security problem you’ve identified is valid, especially post-cow.fi incident, but grant applications require complete information for responsible allocation of treasury funds.gov.optimism

Looking forward to your clarifications.

1 Like
4

Thanks @Bunnic! Our team has already gone ahead and will be submitting the application through the link. Appreciate the heads up!

5

Thanks @MconnectDAO for the solid feedback. I’ve updated our main proposal post directly to reflect these locked-in details. Here is the quick summary addressing your points:

1. Budget & Team Specification

  • Total Request: 32,000 OP for a 12-week core delivery timeline.

  • Milestones: M1 (Decoder) 10,000 OP, M2 (Simulator) 12,000 OP, M3 (Safe Guard, WASM, & Onboarding) 10,000 OP.

  • Dedicated Team: 3 full-time members: Taiwo (Lead Researcher), Charles (Team Lead), and Rotimi (Head of DevRel) + 1 part-time Security Auditor.

  • Justification & Onboarding: Highly cost-effective because we leverage our existing simulator templates. We’ve added a dedicated Developer Onboarding & Educational Campaign to Milestone 3 to ensure immediate adoption and active usage.

2. Technical Differentiation (vs. cow-intent-guard)

  • Shared Code: Only ~15% (Anvil wrappers, generic CLI scaffolding).

  • Net-New EVM/Rust Code (~85%): cow-intent-guard is strictly for CoW’s off-chain solver auction and bit-packed order book. superchain-guard must natively map OP Stack L1-L2 messengers, L2 cross-chain message passing, and SuperchainERC20 bridges. We’re leveraging our architectural experience to save cost instead.

3. Concrete Success Metrics

  • TVL Target: Protect $50M+ in cumulative cross-chain volume within 6 months post-launch (measured via Safe Guard on-chain event telemetry).

  • Reversion Target: Reduce the native cross-chain reversion rate from the current 5-8% average to <0.5% for simulated intents (monitored via opt-in, anonymized CLI telemetry).

4. Integration Strategy

  • Day 1 Self-Sovereign Adoption: We are shipping a Safe Guard. High-TVL DAOs and multisigs can deploy and install this on their multisig immediately without waiting for wallet provider approvals.

  • Wallet PRs: We will compile the engine to WASM and write ready-to-merge integration PRs for major wallets (Safe, Coinbase Wallet) ourselves, bearing all integration overhead.

5. Sustainability & Phased Roadmap

  • Core Public Good: ILE Labs will maintain the free CLI, WASM SDK, and Safe Guard permanently as open-source code.

  • Self-Funding: We plan to launch a premium enterprise tier offering low-latency, private cloud-hosted simulation endpoints for institutional desks. No follow-on maintenance grants will be requested.

  • Phased Expansion: We view this as Phase 1 of a long-term commitment. Success here leads to Phase 2, where we will build a Chrome Extension for retail zero-click pre-flight checks and expand native support to Zora, Mode, and Metal.

6. Competitive Edge

  • vs. Tenderly: Tenderly is closed-source and cloud-based. In a DNS hijack (like cow.fi), the compromised frontend can redirect cloud API calls. superchain-guard is 100% local, offline, and zero-latency, neutralizing DNS-level trust assumptions.

  • vs. Forta: Forta is post-facto monitoring (alerts after a hack). superchain-guard is pre-flight signature prevention (blocks before broadcast).

1 Like
6

Thanks for the detailed follow-up and for taking the time to systematically address the earlier concerns.

From my side, most of the major gaps around differentiation, budget framing, and sustainability are now clearly covered:

  • The technical scope and 85% net-new work for the Superchain context (vs cow-intent-guard) are now much clearer, especially the focus on EVM/Rust/WASM infra and Safe Guard integration.

  • The 32k OP ask over a 12-week period for 3 FT contributors + 1 PT auditor looks within a reasonable range for infra/security work of this complexity, given the architectural reuse and prior experience you outlined.

  • The impact metrics (e.g. targeting >50M USD of protected volume and reducing failure rates from ~5–8% to <0.5% for simulated intents) give reviewers something concrete to evaluate against Season 9 priorities.

  • The plan to keep the core stack open source and rely on an enterprise tier for sustainability (rather than recurring grants) is very helpful from a governance and incentives perspective.

I also appreciate the explicit comparison with Tenderly (cloud dependence, DNS risk) and Forta (post-facto monitoring vs pre-flight signing), which makes the value-prop for Superchain users easier to reason about.

I’ll keep an eye on the opgrants submission, but from a governance due-diligence perspective the proposal now feels substantially more “decision-ready” for reviewers.

7

Thanks for the thorough review and guidance. We’re glad the updates provided the clarity needed, and we’re looking forward to the council’s review!

1 Like