Thesis & Design
The Problem
Crypto has strong incentives to announce, weak incentives to deliver. Today:
- Roadmaps are free to publish and free to ignore.
- Proof of work (commits, demos) is easy to cherry-pick and hard to compare.
- Communities lack an objective, repeatable way to say: "This team consistently ships. This team does not."
- Consequences for missed commitments are mostly social — and often late.
There is no on-chain primitive that answers: "Is this team actually building what they promised?"
The Key Insight
ShipLock does not try to algorithmically determine truth ("is this deliverable good?") using static contract scanners or AI.
Instead it designs a system where:
- The objective part is: time windows, thresholds, and slashing eligibility.
- The subjective part (is this good enough?) is outsourced to humans, but with:
- Economic weighting
- Anti-whale mechanics
- Minimum diversity constraints
ShipLock's reliability comes from mixing deterministic enforcement with economically-backed human validation.
What ShipLock Is NOT
This matters because it keeps the protocol clean and scope-clear.
ShipLock is not:
| Not this | Why |
|---|---|
| A contract security scanner | It doesn't analyze code risk like audit dApps |
| An investment platform or launchpad | It doesn't raise funds or promote tokens |
| A governance voting system | Endorsements validate delivery, not governance proposals |
| A subjective moderation layer | There are no admin decisions — enforcement is deterministic |
| A rug detector | It can help reduce rugs, but it's about shipping, not contract safety |
ShipLock is: a credibility protocol for shipping, not a "safety score."
What Makes ShipLock Different
Many dApps do "analysis" or "ratings." ShipLock's differentiators:
A) It enforces time
Most systems let teams post progress whenever. ShipLock makes progress deadline-bound.
B) It enforces consequences
Most systems show a score. ShipLock enables deterministic slashing if commitments aren't met.
C) It rewards validators without inflation
ShipLock rewards watchers using a pre-allocated rewards pool + protocol fees instead of minting new tokens forever.
D) It creates "verifiable credibility"
A project's shipping track record becomes:
- Queryable — anyone can read it on-chain
- Comparable — leaderboards rank projects by compliance
- Composable — badges, grants, and integrations can reference shipping history
The Mental Model
Think of a ShipLock Project as a recurring on-chain contract between three actors:
| Actor | Role |
|---|---|
| Builder (Project Owner) | "I will ship every X hours/days." |
| Watchers (Validators) | "We will confirm if you did." |
| Protocol (Enforcer) | "If you don't, your bond can be slashed." |
The protocol doesn't care what the work is. It cares that:
- Something was claimed (check-in)
- Evidence was provided (proof)
- Community validation reached a threshold (endorsement)
- Deadlines were respected
Core Actors
Project Owner (Builder)
- Creates project and defines shipping rules
- Locks bond as collateral
- Submits check-ins with evidence
- May update limited metadata (links, description) but not core rules after start
Watcher (Validator)
- Stakes $SHIP globally (not tied to a specific project)
- Gains validation weight via
sqrt(stake) - Endorses check-ins they deem valid
- Earns rewards for endorsing accepted check-ins
Enforcer (Slasher)
- Any user can call
slash()if objective conditions are met - No stake or special permissions required
- Receives a bounty cut — enforcement is incentive-aligned