Cooperation or partnership with

Not sure if some of our community members are aware of the project “Sarcophagus”, which is building a dapp for digital Dead Man’s Switch - DMS, utilizing the decentralized nature of blockchain. Examples and use cases can be referred to here:

The basic idea of a decentralized digital DMS is that a third party is incentivized to decrypt a piece of information that was previously encrypted and stored on-chain with a defined time point beyond which the decryption shall take place. The decryption can only be canceled If the user that initiated the process retrieve his/her request prior to the aforementioned time point. If the user didn’t retrieve in time, aka failed to act, then the DMS is triggered and the decryption takes place.

I’ve followed this project for some time. Though the ideal is really intriguing, I find that there is a huge missed opportunity if the current Sarcophagus protocol only supports time based DMS trigger, or as they call it “in-action based”, but missing occurrence based DMS trigger, i.e. reactionary trigger.

For instance, a plane carries a political activist who has very sensitive intel. In case of an unfortunate event such as an attack to the plane, the activist wants to make sure that the intel will be released if the plane couldn’t make it to a safe landing. In the current time-based Sarcophagus protocol, the activist has to encrypt the intel, put it on-chain, make an agreement with a third party, who shall decrypt the intel after a predefined time point, which can be a little later than the planned landing time. In case that the plane does safely land, then the activist can retrieve his agreement prior to that predefined time point so that no decryption will occur.

The flaw of the above process is the possibility that the safely landed activist may not be able to retrieve the agreement even if he should / wants to, e.g. he may not have internet connection, have had his laptop broken, or simply have forgotten to retrieve the agreement to stop the decryption. And this is where Gelato Network can come to rescue. Instead of / in addition to the activist, the bot can help retrieve the agreement based on public available information, e.g. airport landing info webpage. This way, the activist and the bot are complementary to each other, and whichever acts first will retrieve the agreement as planned. Basically, the advantage of using a decentralized bot network is to mitigate the trust in human behaviors.

This post might be a bit too long, but I really see many use cases around the similar concept that can be established upon both Gelato Network and Sarcophagus. I’ve talked with Sarcophagus community and they are very intrigued by this idea. If our community / team are interested, Sarcophagus is more than happy to offer an introduction / AMA to see where the two project can cooperate.
@Dan @hilmarx @gitpusha @DeFiDave


This is an interesting use case. I wonder if our ‘poke me’ contracts could handle something like this (


For those that are interested, here is a pretty comprehensive report about Sarcophagus:

1 Like