surafelfikru

Project Owner

Mithril – VS Code Fork for Building on ASI Chain

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

An IDE has a simple purpose, to create the best possible DX for specific tooling. The prevalence of IDEs has established clear industry standards. Choosing a VS Code fork offers benefits like instant plugin ecosystem, familiar and simple on-boarding, and active opensource maintenance. The IDE includes local chain simulation, automated testing, contract compilation, deployment scripting, and real-time debugging. Agentic AI development will be core. Following leading open-source AI coding tools like OpenCode, we will produce a seamless pipeline of context-aware prompts, tool integrations, and reusable skills alongside a RAG service specialized for ASI documentation, MeTTA, and related tools.

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 21
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
4
Total Budget
$48,000_USD
Last Updated
13 Feb 2026

Milestone 1 - Foundation & Core IDE

Description

Establish the VS Code fork foundation, implement MeTTa language support, and build local ASI:Chain network simulation. This phase delivers the base development environment with essential blockchain tooling.

Deliverables

- Forked VS Code with ASI:Chain branding and extension marketplace - MeTTa Language Server with syntax highlighting, autocomplete, and error diagnostics - Local ASI:Chain node integration with one-click start/stop - Basic contract compilation pipeline with error reporting - Project scaffolding templates for ASI:Chain dApps

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

- IDE launches in under 3 seconds on standard hardware - MeTTa syntax highlighting covers 100% of language keywords and operators - Autocomplete suggests contextually relevant functions with 90%+ accuracy - Local node spins up in under 30 seconds and maintains stable connection - Compilation errors display with line numbers and actionable suggestions

Milestone 2 - Wallet & Deployment Integration

Description

Integrate ASI Wallet for transaction signing, build deployment scripting infrastructure, and connect to block explorer. This enables the complete write-compile-deploy workflow on DevNet

Deliverables

- Native ASI Wallet integration with key management UI - One-click deployment scripts with gas estimation - Transaction signing and monitoring within IDE - Block explorer embedding for contract verification and transaction history - DevNet connectivity with environment switching (local/DevNet/TestNet)

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Wallet connection establishes in under 5 seconds - Gas estimation accuracy within 10% of actual cost - Deployment transaction confirms on-chain within 2 minutes - Block explorer displays real-time transaction status updates - Environment switching preserves workspace state without restart

Milestone 3 - AI-Native Development

Description

Implement the agentic AI system with natural language interface, RAG service, and vibecoding capabilities. This transforms Mithril from an editor into an intelligent development partner.

Deliverables

- Natural language interface for contract generation and scaffolding - Context-aware prompt system with project understanding - MCP server architecture for tool-use capabilities - RAG service indexing ASI docs, MeTTa specs, and ecosystem resources - Reusable skills system for learning developer patterns - AI-powered debugging assistance and error explanation

Budget

$14,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Natural language to contract generation completes in under 30 seconds - RAG retrieval accuracy: top 3 results relevant 95%+ of the time - AI suggestions accept rate: 70%+ of suggestions are used by developers - MCP tool execution success rate: 90%+ of autonomous operations complete - Skills system reduces repetitive task time by 50%+ after 3 uses

Milestone 4 - Testing, Polish & Demo

Description

Complete testing frameworks, optimize performance, polish UX, and deliver demo application. Final milestone ensures production readiness and showcases full capabilities.

Deliverables

- Automated testing framework with coverage reporting - Step-through debugger with state inspection - Performance optimizations for compilation and deployment speed - Comprehensive documentation and API references - Sample dApp deployed on ASI:Chain demonstrating full workflow - Final demo presentation with vibecoding live demonstration

Budget

$10,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Test execution completes in under 60 seconds for standard suite - Code coverage reporting accurate within 2% of actual coverage - Debugger step-through latency under 100ms per step - Compilation time reduced by 40%+ from Milestone 1 baseline - Sample dApp passes all tests and deploys successfully on DevNet - Demo completes in 10 minutes showing end-to-end vibecoding workflow

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.

surafelfikru

Project Owner

Project manager and Blockchain developer

View Profile

Account Pending

Team member

Team Lead and Rust developer

Account Pending