🔷 Subnet Concept: Solidity Contract Intelligence Subnet

Commodity

Provably correct, optimized, and secure Solidity smart contracts

Not code generation.

Not explanation.

But:

• Compilable

• Gas-efficient

• Passes tests

• Resists attack vectors

• Meets spec

That is a clean digital commodity.

Why This Is Structurally Strong

Compared to prediction markets:

• Faster feedback loop

• Fully objective

• High commercial demand

• Direct Web3 relevance

• Easier validator math

Compared to video interpretation:

• Lower subjectivity

• Deterministic validation

• Lower bandwidth

• Clear metrics

This is much more structured.

Miner Role

Miners receive:

• A contract specification

• Interface requirements

• Security constraints

• Unit tests

• Edge case definitions

Example Input

{"task_type": "erc20_with_vesting","requirements": [
    "ERC20 compliant",
    "Owner-controlled minting",
    "Linear vesting contract",
    "Reentrancy protection"],"tests": [...],"gas_target": 150000}

Miner Output

{"solidity_code": "...","compiler_version": "0.8.24","bytecode_hash": "...","gas_profile": {...}}

Validator Design (This Is Critical)

Validators must:

1️⃣ Compile the Contract

• Must compile successfully.

• No warnings.

2️⃣ Run Test Suite

• All tests must pass.

3️⃣ Run Static Analysis

Using tools like:

• Slither

• Mythril

• Foundry fuzz tests

• Echidna property tests

Score based on:

• Vulnerability count

• Severity weighting

4️⃣ Gas Profiling

• Compare against baseline implementation.

• Reward lower gas consumption.

5️⃣ Formal Properties (Advanced)

Optional but powerful:

• Invariant verification

• Overflow protection

• Access control validation

Scoring Model

You want a deterministic composite score:

[
Score = w1(TestsPassed) + w2(SecurityScore) + w3(GasEfficiency) + w4(CodeQuality)
]

Where:

• TestsPassed is binary or percentage

• SecurityScore penalizes vulnerabilities

• GasEfficiency rewards optimization

• CodeQuality measured via lint metrics

Anti-Gaming Design

Problems to anticipate:

Miner Copying

Mitigation:

• Randomized hidden tests

• Unique task instances

• Version-locked compiler

Overfitting to Tests

Mitigation:

• Hidden adversarial fuzzing

• Random invariant checks

Validator Collusion

Mitigation:

• Validators also cross-checked

• Stake-weighted consensus

• Validator scoring based on agreement with majority

Incentive Emission Logic

Example:

• 65% → Miners

• 25% → Validators

• 10% → Subnet Treasury

Miner reward ∝:

[
(SecurityScore^2) * (GasEfficiencyMultiplier)
]

Security weighted quadratically to discourage sloppy code.

Why Judges Would Like This

✔ High real-world demand
✔ Clear commodity
✔ Deterministic scoring
✔ Strong security narrative
✔ Clear proof-of-intelligence
✔ Strong validator logic

This is not fluff.

It’s measurable engineering quality.

Does It Qualify as “Proof of Intelligence”?

Yes — strongly.

To succeed, a miner must:

• Understand formal specification

• Implement correct logic

• Handle edge cases

• Optimize gas

• Prevent exploits

• Survive fuzzing

That is applied intelligence.

Commercial Narrative (Very Important)

This subnet could:

• Become decentralized audit benchmarking

• Power automated code competitions

• Provide reliability scoring for AI Solidity agents

• Integrate with protocol launches

• Serve as audit pre-screening

Much stronger commercial story than prediction markets.

Comparison Summary

X: Post https://x.com/visualise_x/status/2026562781110030384?s=20