abhi_matterhorn

Project Owner

Matterhorn – AI-Native IDE for Web3

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines An AI-native Development Environment for the ASI:Chain

Details locked. Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.

Overview

Matterhorn proposes to develop an AI-native Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for ASI:Chain that enables developers to vibecode Rholang/MeTTa smart contracts safely and efficiently with AI. By combining natural language interfaces with safety-focused verification mechanisms—including blessed templates, automated concurrency testing, and human-in-the-loop code review—the IDE will lower barriers to entry for blockchain development while maintaining rigorous safety standards. The resulting system can serve as a core developer tool for ASI:Chain, accessible to all developers and integrated with SingularityNET's wallet, Blockchain, and compute for broader adoption.

RFP Guidelines

Open for Proposals

An AI-native Development Environment for...

Ending on:

13 Feb. 2026

Days

Hours

Minutes

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $50,000 USD
Proposals 4
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Feb. 4, 2026

View RFP

This RFP seeks proposals for the development of an AI-native Development Environment (IDE) that improves the efficiency and accessibility of blockchain application development for the ASI:Chain.

Proposal Description

Proposal Details Locked…

In order to protect this proposal from being copied, all details are hidden until the end of the submission period. Please come back later to see all details.

Total Milestones
2
Total Budget
$50,000_USD
Last Updated
8 Feb 2026

Milestone 1 - IDE MVP with ASI:Chain wallet integration

Description

Phase 1: Core IDE Deliverables: 1. Basic IDE code editor for MeTTa -Professional editor with syntax highlighting and error detection -Project management and file organization -Integration with version control systems 2. Blessed Template Library -5 community-vetted contract templates for common patterns -Template documentation and usage guides 3. Testing Infrastructure -Static analyzer for common Rholang mistakes -Basic testing system 4. Wallet & Deployment -ASI Wallet integration for transaction signing -Deployment to ASI:Chain DevNet and Testnet -Transaction tracking and status monitoring 5. Block Explorer Integration -View deployed contracts and transactions -Debugging support with contract state inspection -Transaction history and logs 6. AI Assistance (Limited Scope) -Natural language interface for code suggestions -Context-aware code completions based on templates -Documentation and comment generation 7. Documentation & Demo -Technical documentation for architecture and APIs -User guide for IDE features -Tutorial for building first application

Deliverables

Deliverables: •Functional IDE with code editor with syntax highlighting and error detection •ASI Wallet integration for testnet and devnet •Block explorer integration •Technical documentation and user guide •Demo of complete development workflow •Blessed template library (5-10 templates)

Budget

$40,000 USD

Success Criterion

Success Criteria: •IDE is functional and usable for building simple Rholang/MeTTa contracts •Core features are implemented for the MVP •Documentation is complete and clear •Demo successfully shows end-to-end workflow for a dAPP

Milestone 2 - IDE with sample app creation using MeTTa

Description

Deliverables: 1. Local Development Network -ASI:Chain deployment for testing on Testnet and DevNet -Rapid iteration on DevNet -Test data and contract deployment tools 2. Advanced Testing & Verification -Concurrency fuzzer for detecting race conditions -Determinism checker for verifying consistent behavior -Integration with formal verification frameworks -Performance profiling and optimization suggestions 3. Documentation & Examples -Guides for concurrent programming -Best practices documentation -Sample applications built entirely with the IDE -Video tutorials and webinars 4. Security Review & Hardening -Overall testing of IDE and testing infrastructure -Fuzzing results and vulnerability analysis -Recommendations for further hardening -Production readiness assessment 5. Demo of complete development workflow with one working app

Deliverables

Deliverables: •Production-ready IDE with core features optimized •Devnet and testnet available for testing •Simple testing and verification tools on the IDE •User documentation and tutorials •Sample application on ASI:Chain built with the IDE •Application testing results •Performance analysis and optimization recommendations •First cut of the concurrency fuzzer and determinism checker

Budget

$10,000 USD

Success Criterion

•IDE is production-ready and suitable for private beta release •All features are fully tested and documented •Sample application demonstrates real-world usage •Security review identifies no critical issues

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

Reviews and Ratings in Deep Funding are structured in 4 categories. This will ensure that the reviewer takes all these perspectives into account in their assessment and it will make it easier to compare different projects on their strengths and weaknesses. Overall (Primary) This is an average of the 4 perspectives. At the start of this new process, we are assigning an equal weight to all categories, but over time we might change this and make some categories more important than others in the overall score. (This may even be done retroactively). Feasibility (secondary) This represents the user\'s assessment of whether the proposed project is theoretically possible and if it is deemed feasible. E.g. A proposal for nuclear fission might be theoretically possible, but it doesn’t look very feasible in the context of Deep Funding. Viability (secondary) This category is somewhat similar to Feasibility, but it interprets the feasibility against factors such as the size and experience of the team, the budget requested, and the estimated timelines. We could frame this as: “What is your level of confidence that this team will be able to complete this project and its milestones in a reasonable time, and successfully deploy it?” Examples:

A proposal that promises the development of a personal assistant that outperforms existing solutions might be feasible, but if there is no AI expertise in the team the viability rating might be low.
A proposal that promises a new Carbon Emission Compensation scheme might be technically feasible, but the viability could be estimated low due to challenges around market penetration and widespread adoption.

Desirability (secondary) Even if the project team succeeds in creating a product, there is the question of market fit. Is this a project that fulfills an actual need? Is there a lot of competition already? Are the USPs of the project sufficient to make a difference? Example:

Creating a translation service from, say Spanish to English might be possible, but it\'s questionable if such a service would be able to get a significant share of the market

Usefulness (secondary) This is a crucial category that aligns with the main goal of the Deep Funding program. The question to be asked here is: “To what extent will this proposal help to grow the Decentralized AI Platform?” For proposals that develop or utilize an AI service on the platform, the question could be “How many API calls do we expect it to generate” (and how important / high-valued are these calls?). For a marketing proposal, the question could be “How large and well-aligned is the target audience?” Another question is related to how the budget is spent. Are the funds mainly used for value creation for the platform or on other things? Examples:

A metaverse project that spends 95% of its budget on the development of the game and only 5 % on the development of an AI service for the platform might expect a low ‘usefulness’ rating here.

A marketing proposal that creates t-shirts for a local high school, would get a lower ‘usefulness’ rating than a marketing proposal that has a viable plan for targeting highly esteemed universities in a scaleable way.
An AI service that is fully dedicated to a single product, does not take advantage of the purpose of the platform. When the same service would be offered and useful for other parties, this should increase the ‘usefulness’ rating.

abhi_matterhorn

Project Owner

Founder and CEO.

View Profile