Solution: LP-0003 - Private Allowlist / Airdrop Distributor

[Timidan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulw6cdSY3T8

[github-actions]

✅ Validation passed

A reviewer will assess against the prize criteria.
ℹ️ Solution submission for LP-0003.
ℹ️ Checking repo: https://github.com/Timidan/dist-x

---

Automated check. See solution template and TERMS.

[danisharora099]

Thank you for the submission. This submission does not pass the LP-0003 success criteria.

Per the repository's initial-feedback policy, this review is limited to the pass/fail result.

[danisharora099]

Hi @Timidan. This submission does not pass the LP-0003 success criteria. Per the repository's reject-and-resubmit process, we are closing this submission.

Any further LP-0003 submission is subject to maintainer confirmation of the applicable submission-limit policy.

[Timidan]

@danisharora099

you did not specify the conditions that were not met

also, i have been resubmitting because review takes roughly 3-weeks and the criteria is always changed without any notification... its been more than 3months

[danisharora099]

Hi @Timidan — you’re right to ask, and I understand the frustration given the review time and submission history.

I kept the initial review brief because the repository policy limits initial feedback to a pass/fail result. The decisive unmet criteria in this review were:

• S2: the standalone-sequencer E2E did not run in CI; the job completed through its explicit skip path.
• S6: the video did not demonstrate the final submitted PPE flow with visible RISC0_DEV_MODE=0 proof generation.
• U2: no downloadable Basecamp artifact was provided.

These are sufficient for the current result. There are separate interpretation questions around submission limits, native versus custom-token delivery, and anonymity-set requirements. I’ve raised those internally rather than treating them as settled against your submission.

You’re also right that the review timing and changing criteria need addressing. We’re asking the maintainers to clarify and document the rules before another LP3 submission is evaluated.

[Timidan]

@danisharora099

i understand and thanks for the reply , I actually did satisfy most of these except the CI and that was because it was not possible before and I also documented this limitation...this might have changed because of how logos evolves very faster than the reviews take....

My video definitely did show me using risc0_dev_mode=0 as each proof/claim generation took around 37minutes to complete

i definitely had a Basecamp package ready to download and run

please kindly help re-review...I've spent a lot of time to perfect distributionx

[danisharora099]

Thanks, @Timidan. I’m happy to recheck those two points.

For the video, I confirmed that you narrate using RISC0_DEV_MODE=0 and describe the long proof time. However, the recording skips the proof-generation period, and the terminal output is not legible enough for us to verify the active mode and proof output. Could you provide the exact timestamp where these are visibly shown?

For Basecamp, the repository contains build instructions, but our submission-time check found no downloadable GitHub release or Actions artifact. Could you link the exact downloadable .lgx package that was part of the submitted evidence?

If those references establish the requirements, I’ll correct the record for S6/U2. The standalone-sequencer CI requirement remains unmet, so the overall result would still remain fail unless maintainers confirm a waiver or different interpretation.

[Timidan]

i see

@danisharora099

the requirement said to show the terminal using risc0_dev_mode=0 when starting the cli...it didn't say to show the proof generation itself...hence I cut that part of the video because of time...if you also notice..mpwrt of the video was sped up

i can revisit the LG packages as I was sure I uploaded these to the repository

regarding CI...it is very possible that this requirement is possible to be done with the current state of logos testnet v2.0...

but I need to be certain that if I correct the above(since it will require me recording another video from scratch -- this time more lengthier and updating all the repository with the required artifacts and also solving CI), my submission would re-reviewed as soon as possible to prevent another deviation and silent change of requirement... I really want distribution to be part of logos

thanks

[danisharora099]

Hi @Timidan, thanks for explaining, and for all the time you have put into this.

You are right about the video. You do not need to record the full 30 to 40 minute wait. Cutting or speeding it up is fine. Our earlier wording was too strict.

I checked internally, and submission attempts are controlled by CI. Before doing more work, please confirm that CI will accept a new submission. If it blocks you, let me know and I will look into it.

For a corrected submission, we need:

1. The full standalone test to actually run in CI without being skipped.
2. A downloadable Basecamp .lgx package linked from the PR.
3. A short video for the exact submitted version. Please show the commit, RISC0_DEV_MODE=0, the command starting, the completed proof, a successful claim, and a duplicate claim being rejected. The long wait can be cut.
4. Fresh testnet links that we can verify during the review.

The small recipient-group concern and the separate custom-token transaction will not be treated as blockers under the current rules.

If CI accepts a new PR, tag me. I cannot promise an exact review date, but I will confirm receipt quickly and give you a clear timeframe. We will review it against the published requirements in place when you submit it, without adding new requirements later.

[Timidan]

thanks a lot @danisharora099

back to work I guess!

[Timidan]

@danisharora099

i opened a test pr #124

it seems to pass CI fine so i will proceed to fix all issues now and submit a final PR

thanks