(Community Spend Proposal) Citadel.one to integrate SNIP-20 tokens, sSCRT Converter, and Secret Bridges into Mobile & Web Versions


Citadel.one proposes a community spend of 75 000 SCRT to add SNIP-20 tokens compatibility, SCRT>sSCRT/sSCRT>SCRT converter and Secret Ethereum Bridge interface to Citadel.one and mobile app. SNIP-20 privacy tokens unlock the crucial use-cases, and create a new value for the next generation of blockchain. Having access to manage them with cross chain mobile and web wallets will be a tremendous step towards Secret Network growth and privacy tokens adoption.

About Citadel.one

Citadel.one is a multi-asset non-custodial staking platform that lets anyone become a part of decentralized infrastructure and earn passive income. Citadel.one is presented not only as a staking platform but also one of the biggest validator universes, with over 15 nodes running on different networks.

Features for Secret Network already integrated into Citadel.one:

  • Non-custodial one-seed wallet
  • Hardware wallets support
  • Sign up with Social Media
  • Staking and multi-node delegation
  • Multi wallet analytical dashboard
  • Transactions history
  • Rewards notifications

Citadel.one links:

Proposal objectives:

In November Citadel.one announced that a mobile wallet was in development for both Android and iOS users. At the same time secretSCRT, FATS and secret ERC-20 tokens got a lot of publicity, which attracted many new users to Secret Network.

After that Citadel.one team started receiving multiple requests and suggestions from some of the Secret Node operators and active members of the Secret community to add SNIP-20 tokens compatibility to Citadel.one mobile wallet.

For now, SNIP- 20 tokens support is only provided by Keplr browser extension wallet. No official announcements regarding developments of Keplr mobile wallet with SNIP-20 tokens compatibility was made so far.

Cosmostation has a Secret network integrated into their mobile wallet but no plans to add SNIP-20 tokens have been announced recently.

On the moment of writing the proposal there were 323 users and over 3000 computations made just among secretSCRT, secretETH, FATS and sALT and while these numbers are steadily growing day by day, which proves users demand for a convenient tool to manage SNIP-20 tokens.

Proposal Description:

The initial public release of the Citadel.one mobile app is planned for the end of December - beginning of January. To foster further Secret Network development and SNIP-20 tokens adoption, Citadel.one proposes to add SNIP-20 compatibility, SCRT>sSCRT>SCRT converter and Secret Bridge to both Citadel.one mobile app and web platform. All Bridge supported tokens will be integrated to Citadel.one platform, so there will be no need to connect two wallets (Keplr and Metamask) but perform all actions in one app.

Citadel.one and SNIP-20 tokens interactions:

  1. Add SNIP-20 tokens to Citadel.one
  2. Create viewing key
  3. Send SNIP-20 tokens, add memo, set transaction commission
  4. View SNIP-20 transactions history
  5. SCRT -> secretSCRT / secretSCRT -> SCRT converter
  6. ERC20/SNIP20 bridge (+ BAND and OCEAN)

Development & launch:

Secret Network and SNIP-20 interfaces are estimated to be fully integrated within 12-16 weeks after proposal passes if so. Features will be released in stages and announced accordingly.

Development roadmap:

Total: 1656 hours

Spendings breakdown:

Team LinkedIn/GitHub Profiles

Citadel.one team will make sure to:

  • Keep Secret community updated on all the significant development milestones regarding SNIP-20 interfaces integration;

  • Prepare detailed written and video guides on how to interact with Citadel.one mobile app, add, send, receive and convert SNIP-20 tokens;

  • Launch a marketing campaign in order to raise awareness around SNIP-20 tokens and Secret Ethereum bridge and attract new users to Secret Network

  • Maintain full technical and informational support for Secret Network users’


Payment will be made in three installments of the following schedule:
1/3 of the total amount upon the on-chain proposal passing.
1/3 of the total amount upon completion of milestone 4
1/3 of the total amount upon completion of milestone 7

1 Like

Puzzle is a firm no on asking for 15%+ of the community pool but we are still very supportive of citadel.one so expect our stance on this proposal to change if the ask for scrt amount is lowered to something 100k or less. We are fine with waiting for scrt to go up in value like we did with the figment proposal.

Since the community pool is our only resource for funding community projects that token holders have any say over, I think we need to be careful to protect the reserves.

All past 100k+ community spend proposals either came during a time when scrt was not listed or the community pool tax was at 75%.

Going to wait for others to comment before I say more.


Let me clarify the spendings.

Such a feedback is expected - that’s why we’ve broken down the spendings and made a detailed description of all stages. We need to take into account that this proposes the integration of all the most important Secret Network features not only to web version of citadel.one, but also to mobile app (3 in 1 for mobile app and 3 in 1 for web platform). More than that, we will integrate all supported tokens for the secret bridge, making it Keplr + Metamask in-one wallet. We tried our best to estimate hours spent on the research and development accordingly.

Another thing to consider - Citadel.one is completely free of charge for users, and the integration of Secret into Citadel.one was fully covered by the team funds. This time we need some financial support.


Thanks for the response for sure.

So we may change our stance from no if y’all ask for less than 10% of the pool. Otherwise we will stick to no. This is in line with our feedback to figment and a stance we will always maintain unless in an emergency situation or unless the community pool tax is increased from 2%. I’d rather see many teams funded reasonable amounts than fewer teams take 10-15%+ of the pool in individual proposals.

A possible solution is that you take out the web based stuff from the proposal and just focus on mobile. This could make a lot of sense considering puzzle is already funded by community spend and will be delivering on every feature you stated other than the mobile based features. This would make the proposal far more reasonably priced in comparison to the total reserves and rate at which it fills. This is just a thought, the community may decide they want to double fund things and we think that’s up to the community to decide / will back what the community wants here.


I appreciate the decency of not intending to charge users after requesting the community to fund it. Likewise I think it is just as considerable the fact that the initial implementation of Secret into Citadel was done without funding. I also like the overall level of detail provided on the proposal.

With that said some of these estimates seem a bit generous (?) given the features being offered. There is also some overlap with features already being offered in other platforms, making it a bit harder to justify.

I can see the value being proposed and I do think it merits funding but I’m a bit concerned on the estimates given.

Happy to be convinced otherwise by anyone more involved in developing on SCRT I might be missing some technical challenges from the outside.


Like @moonstash,

Happy to have a mobile upgrade only.
If as stated we are already funding Puzzle to do the other.

Puzzle and Citadel.one are building different products, I believe. If I understand that correctly, Puzzle is building an interface for wallets to be used with Secret Bridge and sSCRT Converter (though we already have those interfaces in Keplr and Secret Bridge website). It’s a product solely designed for Secret Network.
Citadel.one is a cross chain wallet. This means we are not only going to integrate the bridge, but are planning to integrate all supported ERC-20 tokens + BAND + OCEAN to our wallet, too. This will be a wallet, for example for BAND or AAVE with staking and sending/receiving functionality for them, which means there will be basic BAND and AAVE users that might come for staking or just for a wallet to Citadel, but later will find out that they can also wrap their assets into secret and enjoy this feature as well. So this will be an all-in-one product without needing to connect anything else. I don’t see Aave users coming to Puzzle to stake their AAVE

Those are different experiences, thus two different products, so I don’t see this as a double spending.


As I pointed out already in my this reply, there is no overlap, cause we are offering different products.

As for the generous estimates. Well, we consider ourselves a decent FinTech company offering a great product with seamless UI/UX, 24/7 tech and info support and a media hub. Welcome to check our product and social media :slight_smile: We have an extensive and very professional team. Our wage rates are generous, but not overestimated, I guess, just above average. I get my salary in crypto, which is totally fine with me, but we are trying to attract more professional developers to blockchain industry, so for them getting a salary in crypto is kind of associated with risk, and this makes a salary also a little bit higher.
Again, we propose 3 features in 1 for mobile + 3 features in 1 for web + integration of all supported ERC20 + Band + Ocean, and for all those features we are asking less than what Keplr or Cosmostation asked just for their integration of Secret Network without snip20 and secret bridge.


This package includes a lot of things not just snip20 tokens.The mobile wallet will reflect on secret network’s image the same way the website does. I believe that no expense should be spared for the long awaited mobile wallet and citadel one can deliver.


Agreeing that a mobile wallet is Good

Refer to those in the SCRT world as to whether Puzzle is doing the same development.

As for Devs not having confidence in the " Crytpo World " a worry.

Even my realestate agent accepted Crypto as payment for commission on the sale of one of my commercial buildings 3 weeks ago. Seriously !!!

This is a wrong interpretation of my words. We all accept crypto as payment. But in regards it’s considered a risk, we make salaries slightly higher.
Every member of our team is a professional. I consider it as adoption case, when a company hires a professional staff, attracting more people to blockchain and crypto. Rates above high in this industry is a usual thing I guess.
And it’s not my main point. The main point why we need web, is that Citadel.one is a cross chain wallet, we not only have erc20 tokens, but also other chains like Tezos, Cosmos, ICON, IOST, ORBS, will have Polkadot integrated soon too. This will give a huge adoption opportunity to all of them without a need to specifically integrate various wallets that support each of the currency that we want to add to the bridge.

1 Like

We are building different products for sure. But in regard to the secret network related web features you listed, we are building the exact same thing into puzzle without another community spend.

Again though, if the community wants to double fund explorer / contract interface based features then that is up to the community.

The features are same but for different use cases. While puzzle will attract users of, let’s say AAVE who want to wrap their tokens into secret, then transfer to some other address, unwrap and go. They will need specifically to go to puzzle and do that. So, it’s primarily a service for Secret Network users who also hold erc20 tokens and already heard of puzzle, and familiar with it, otherwise there is Secret Bridge website.
While all users that have Citadel.one account and use Citadel.one for staking, making transactions, store crypto and so on will have an opportunity to use the bridge without interacting with another service. So, they might come for staking Aave, Band, ATOM or whatever, but also get wrapping as an additional feature.

1 Like

Maybe I did not explain properly. My agent accepted the payment in Crypto. Then kept some, coverted some to Gold, the balance he made a deposit on another investment house in Crypto to the developer.

This is what can the Mainstream future should look like.

If your product is good then there is only up risk. so I understand your words perfectly Vlad

Sorry , surely you can see why my business brain is a little worried.?

So if SCRT goes up you will refund us the difference.?

Do not want to seem confrontational but the success of from " Toy to Mainstream " is about us all adopting Crypto over FIAT with Confidence

Payments should be made for work performed & paid on completion so No need to factor in an extra 10% plus contingence surely.

Possibly in future may not want to tell the prospective client that your team are slight Mainstream Crytpo Sceptics as justification for inflating the costs.

We are off topic , so will leave it to the SCRT boffins to further discuss the merits

Happy New Year Vlad

For sure there are other customers to reach through your website but that’s because citadel.one is a validator website first and foremost. You have other features of course but puzzle is an explorer not a validator business website. We don’t promote our validator above others on the site to any degree.

It sort of seems like a market rate request for funds from the community pool to build out features for your validator website / business. That is the sort of thing you’d have to build anyways to attract customers for your validator business. In this regard i see similarities to the figment proposal with the major difference being that the API was arguably desperately needed for the infrastructure of the network.

The community is already getting most of what you are proposing to build and the mobile part while important isn’t vitally pressing to happen immediately. The bulk of scrt is already in a desktop or hardware wallet of some kind, it’s not like the early days when we needed to fund keplr.

We have the luxury of being able to wait longer for it if the only option you are presenting is a packaged deal or perhaps a mobile only version of your plan could gain traction.

1 Like

To a certain extent, my initial feeling is that the incorporation of things that can be done through other channels isn’t really about offering something new to the community, but to improve your product so that it is more competitive and drives more delegation to your various validators. And for that reason are likely things you would want to do whether you received funding or not. I personally would probably like to see a proposal asking for a smaller amount to fund just the stuff the community doesn’t already have. And all the stuff that would be to improve your product and drive business, but the community can do through other channels, should be self-funded


Thank you @moonstash, @baedrik, @peteblank, @mumuse and @MickeyT. I see your points. Let’s see what other community members will have to say so that I could collect the feedback for our team.

Also, want to clear out some points.
As for Validators business. Citadel.one is censorship free and wallet users can delegate to all active nodes from all supported networks. We don’t force users to stake only with our nodes, and I personally suggest people to multistake when someone needs assistance with it on Telegram or wherever.

As for offering something new to community.
We offer the community a wallet that apart from secret network and some other cosmos based project will have erc20 tokens and other chains compatible, + will have all major features that SN offers. This is not only for existing community, but will help to widen it up.

And regarding our staff. We are also happy to attract new professional developers to this industry and not only choose from those who already in here. And we are all full time with Citadel.one.

1 Like

I see the perspectives that are saying there are features proposed that might be in development by another team, or already done, and so why duplicate those efforts as part of this proposal? And I hear the double-dipping argument as well.

My perspective is from more of a user experience standpoint – would I want to do some tasks in an explorer, and others in a mobile app?

If I were a user of the Citadel.one apps (web and mobile), I’d prefer to have a seamless, unified UX. But then there are times where I’m in an explorer and want to perform tasks there so it’s kind of about ease of use – no matter what app I’m using I want to be able to do some of the same things and stay in that interface.

I think going forward we’ll likely have other tools come up for community or ecosystem spend proposals and those may have features already in Puzzle or Citadel.one, or Keplr, etc. Users would then have more choices and there would be a diverse group of tool contributors. I think that’s kind of healthy for the Secret Network.

I am actually looking forward to having an interface that incorporates the secret bridge, snip-20 tokens, and a SCRT to secretSCRT converter, all in one place. It would be great to have all of that in Puzzle and Keplr too at some point.

This proposal doesn’t seem like a play for funding for a validator business to me, and as Vlad said users can choose any validator to stake with in the app. It seems more like a leveling up of the toolset for Secret Network users, and also would likely bring in users from other chains which should help with adoption.

Having access to manage them with cross chain mobile and web wallets
will be a tremendous step towards Secret Network growth and privacy 
tokens adoption.

Citadel.one is definitely a professional team, with some serious UI and design skills too. I thought the pay rates were about right for the different roles and being paid in crypto. The hours seem a tad bit high, but I trust that the team did their best to provide reliable estimations given their experience creating the current Citadel.one platform.

If anything, I wonder if the estimate on the testing and debugging is too low (3 days, 2 QA Engineers). I don’t know if that takes into account multiple cycles of testing/debugging/developer fixes … then new release and regression testing/debugging etc. Maybe the developer hours are padded a bit to account for that?

The only area I have a concern with is the amount of SCRT being requested – not because I don’t think it’s a fair request based on the given breakdown in the proposal, but because the community pool is currently at 894,110 SCRT and this proposal would be for 17% of that.

Potential options are:

  1. Wait until the value of SCRT in USD is higher so the amount of SCRT requested in this proposal can be reduced (could be quite a delay)

  2. Split the funding requested so it’s shared between the community pool, ecosystem fund and possibly the foundation (more work and not a guaranteed outcome).

  3. Reduce the SCRT requested by changing the scope of the proposal to be mobile only (cost of web app development absorbed by Citadel.one).

  4. Keep the ask at 150,000 SCRT (17% of the fund, community may not pass it).

I personally think that community spend proposals should be considered on a case-by-case basis in terms of the amount, value added, features, past proposals, etc., rather than just strictly comparing the SCRT amount requested to past proposals.

So if the proposal passed at 150k SCRT, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s setting a precedent. It could just mean that the community thought this particular proposal/tool was worth the investment.


This is a classic tragedy of the commons situation, without people who fight to keep the reserves high we will just have team after team come and use previous ask amounts to justify their asks and have no regard for the long term use of the pool.

Citadel.one is a great and talented team that we should all want to retain in our ecosystem. But how do we want to use the pool? If it’s okay to use the pool to pay anyone with an idea, and if its okay to fund something we are already getting for free, then I’d still rather fund a bunch projects instead of a few massive asks. There are a lot of teams in our network that could really use funding and this could be broken up into funding 5-10 projects at 15-30k scrt each.

I really hope people think about reserve management before this public good is depleted. Having proposed the swap i know how vital it is to have a community pool, without it there would have been no swap. We should not allow people to come one by one and ask for 10%+ unless it’s vitally needed or an emergency. Cosmos has a healthy pool size, let’s not be foolish.

I’d support any of the first 3 options you listed. And i agree with many of your points but I disagree with some.


Fair enough :star_struck:

1 Like