Free TON

Contest proposal: Free TON wallet as a Chrome extension

No, you didn’t. Because of this I’m asking here.

Which one of these is your Telegram username?

Hi all!

The proposal states the following as the reward amount and vesting terms:

Place Prize, TON
1 80,000
2 70,000
3 60,000
4-10 10,000

Prize payout and vesting

  • Winners receive no more than 10,000 TON of their rewards after contest results are finalized;
  • The remaining amount will be distributed within six months in equal parts monthly;
  • The contestant should support the solution for six months to receive all vesting distributions:
    • Major reported issues should be resolved within a reasonable timeframe - one month maximum.

Due to ‘no more than’ part, the vesting terms might have different interpretation.

We should submit an amendment that clearly states the reward distribution rule.

It’s proposed to use the following model:

  • Winners receive 10 000 TON of their rewards when contest results are evaluated
  • Remaining amount is distributed within a 6 month period in equal parts on a monthly basis
  • To receive all 6 distributions, the solution should be supported for 6 months:
    • The code should be updated within a reasonable timeframe - 1 month maximum
    • Major GitHub Issues should be resolved within a reasonable timeframe - 1 month maximum

Please, give your feedback if any.

Attention to all participants and jury members!

Due to the fact that the jury in this contest is compiled from the jury members of DeFi and DevEx subgovernances and the contest is run in the '‘main governance’, the smart-contract had to be redeployed. Additional 7 days have been added to the voting.

Good luck to all participants!


Unfortunately, 2 members of the jury who managed to vote will have to put down their marks again. We are very sorry for this additional work. But it turned out that most of the jury members could not vote due to an error.

1 Like

Please inform those jurors directly

Hey, chaps!

As the number of wallets supporting FreeTON grows, I decided to draft the standard of payment links in TON Crystals similar to BIP-21 in Bitcoin but taking into account some of the features of TON.

This standard doesn’t cover:

  • Smart contracts calls and payload in general (only simple comment is supported)
  • TIP-3 and NFT tokens transfer (I reserved separate TIPs as extensions of this standard)
  • Recipient callbacks (similar to BIP 70-72)

Please join the discussion:

#tip #freeton #ton #crystals #payment


Submission 8
Juror 0:d2cd1ff ···· 97465bed2
All of your comments are wrong:

Works, but no security at all!! Not even a password/PIN.

The password is creating right after wallet creation\restoring. Seed phrase and secret key saving encrypted by chacha20.

Does not request 12/24 words on send.

Failed to complete steps to build the project from source: yarn install and yarn run build could not find the respective scenarios.

Everything is working:

Multiple submissions of the work are not endorsed.

If you watched this forum you can see messages before, it was DAPP-server glitching.

Also in pdf have telegram contact of participant. Before set 1 point you can contact and clarify what is wrong.

I ask to disqualify that juror!


Voting is not working, no more gas on contract.

I agree. Boris Ivanovsky, can you explain your 1 point vote please? What does “no security at all” mean?
Liberton also (as well as extraTON I believe) has all needed encryption and it mentioned at the submission, or you can see it at the source code as it publicly available. Why won’t you contact us before vote to get additional explanations?


Same question. Why jury didn’t notify me that they have some issues with running extension? Some of jury gave 2-3 points because they had issues with building app. On github you can find builds of extension. And it is already published to chrome store.



We also have questions for the jurior Boris Ivanovskiy (@bivanovsky).

For second half of comment:

“Build steps are somewhat missing, and building the binaries has not been trivial”.

The submission document contains instructions for installing the extension from the GitHub repo.

It clearly follows from the instructions that the extension does not require any building or compilation for installation, and can be installed directly from the repository files.

We think that if this is descripted in the jurior comment, then the score was lowered during the vote.

If the other contributors use the webpack to build their extensions, we shouldn’t get an underestimated score for just “They not using a webpack and I can’t understand that”.


Submission 8
0:7dd2b7e ···· b8d6115e0

works but lack of security and tip-3 support and strange design decisions

  1. Could you please explain your position about lack of security?
  2. Where did you see requirement about tip-3?

0:2409a5f ···· 2bdfe0147

no security at all

Could you please explain your position about that?

I know what’s happened. You, guys, even didn’t open submission and evaluated version from chrome store.


We also have some questions to Boris Ivanovskiy and Ilya Podoynitsyn. We got 0 points from you (reject).
You wrote: “Broken links” and “A web service, not a browser wallet.”
Links that don’t work are marked “Will change after contest”. We deliberately did not upload new versions so that there were no questions from the judge, for example, “The work was changed after the contest”, because such claims in the community were multiple times. To the second part of your comment. Actually, a browser extension is a web service, it’s just packed as an extension. In one repository we have just the extension, in the other - site. Based on this, we believe that our project deserves some kind of evaluation, not a “reject”.
We also have a question to Peter Fedorov. You also gave us 0 (reject) and wrote one word: “subpar”. We did not understand your comment at all :slightly_smiling_face:. Explain, please.


To continue:

0:b6ed2e8 ···· d4247820b

which tag to checkout?

Are you serious? You ask this in vote comment? You had 37 days to ask us in telegram.

0:fb78684 ···· 083d499a6

No confirmation on transactions.

What is that then?

0:1db4191 ···· 7c1833105

the functionality is limited compared to the competitors

We had covered all Hard and all Soft criteria of contest requirements. About what functionality you’re speaking?

1 Like

Can somebody mention these jurors in this topic? Have they seen our comments?

1 Like

Yes, you’ve covered all criteria of contest requirements.
I’m talking about the following functionality that some of your competitors have:

  • networks support (there’s no fld, rust, local, custom networks);
  • autologout;
  • themes;
  • restore by 24 words seed phrase;
  • restore by tonos-cli key pair;
    And you would get a really big competitive advantage if you supported the ability to restore an arbitrary wallet contract.

restore by 24 words seed phrase;

We have it, see picture 1

And you would get a really big competitive advantage if you supported the ability to restore an arbitrary wallet contract.

We have functionality to select arbitrary contract and on restore and on create. see picture 1 and 2.

Also, compare with other participants, we have localized the interface for 6 languages. See picture 3.

Sorry, but unset 4 points for few extra things is absolutely inadequate decision.

It is the common questions.

This comment doesn’t belong to our official team position, just my personal opinion.

I don’t want to argue. Judges are great man and etc…
Only dry facts:

Crystal TON wallet - the winner.

0:7dd2b7e ···· b8d6115e0 9 pts
good ui, nice interface, tip-3 tokens are supported, security looks good - TIP-3 was not in hard criteria, it is the 2nd stage.
0:1c8de90 ···· a752afabb 9 pts
Good architecture description. All hard criteria met. - about all hard and soft criteria below What about soft?
0:deb918b ···· 489b052be 8 pts
this version works as good as expected, and only advice is put more attention on UX/UI details and manuals. - the same about UI + manuals, documentation
0:418d174 ···· 209b8b91e 10 pts
Great design. The whole function works. The solution is ready. Best Submission in Contest. Good documentation, by the way - the same about UI + manuals, documentation
0:fb78684 ···· 083d499a6 10 pts
Brilliant design. Good documentations. All function works. Production ready. The best submission on context - the same about UI + manuals, documentation
0:2409a5f ···· 2bdfe0147 9 pts
Excellent work. All criterias are met, good architecture and pretty nice UX. - the same about UI + manuals, documentation
0:1db4191 ···· 7c1833105 10 pts
I’m impressed by the features. It is definitly the first place. - modest comment, just 1st place
0:d2cd1ff ···· 97465bed2 9 pts
Unanimously the best entry in this contest. Other comments: Probably the best submission, but way too technical, and a choke point when registering. Still, very good since it’s specifically aimed at devs, not users. Docker dependency is not a plus. - the best of best (Unanimously)

Now let’s go through checklist by the extension which anyone can install from the chrome webstore:

Hard criteria:
Wallet features

  • Public and private keys generation, backup, and restoration; - where is it? Or do you mean that to show on creating and then restore “by seed” only when the user have to reinstall this extension is it meet this criteria?
  • Support of sending a memo with messages (or encoded payload). - where is it? (you can see on gif above - no button there at all) Maybe I have to send some Crystal to start? Why I as a user can’t figure out how to start to use this the best production ready solution?
  • Support of mainnet and testnet(s); - How can I add my own testnet (localhost)?

About votes in other solutions.
If check all comments, you can see again and again - no tip-3 support.
For 1st stage doesn’t required. I even don’t know how for 2 months was possible to add TIP-3 from stage 2 to this contest if only didn’t start the developing before the contest announcement. Some participants tell that it is unique feature that differ the submission from other submissions. About this below…

All comments are not informative. If the judge writes - not all hard criteria, need to specify which is lack of there.
80% of all comments with the same sense - “UI cool, doc is ok” or “not all hard criterias are met” (ok, which not?)

What for there TIP-3 and web3 for the first stage? I can’t add one more account to test…

No gas to vote for all judges. There were 24 judges. maximum 14 on submissions where just 0 points.

I sure on 90% that voted judges even didn’t open submissions, because so unbound comments.

Why I think so, because these comments:

0:7dd2b7e ···· b8d6115e0 5 pts
clean good approach but don’t see how other assets beside ton will be added
No mentions in hard/soft criteria about this feature

0:d2cd1ff ···· 97465bed2 4 pts
incomplete dependencies: npm. error-prone: doesn’t specify units, wastes funds on impossible transfers. Offers a very limited subset of the underlying contract functionality.
incomplete dependencies: npm - I can run “npm i” and no errors.

0:d2cd1ff ···· 97465bed2 4 pts
Multiple dependencies are missing. The build steps specified failed with assorted error messages (npm install: couldn’t obtain ChromeExtension, npm start: sass, node-sass, npm run tests: tests/e2ee), along with several project-related warnings. Looks incomplete.
There is not specified “build steps”. No dependency - ChromeExtension and sass.
Looks incomplete - it is placed in the official webstore. How is it possible?

And in each submission the same repeated comments…

Not equal number of votes in each submission - why?

In this thread we can see comments that some submissions don’t have some original features. Ok, but why judges check that winner has TIP-3 and web3 or not? It is the 1st stage. What will they show later? It is not unique features - all will have them by 3rd stage. What for to judge by them?

The main question to judges…

Congrats the winners!


Hi guys, let’s long the voting as you can see votes count is different for the different proposals. As you can see 17 and 18 have 10 votes, 20 has 11 votes, 6 other proposals have 12 votes, 8 proposals have 13 and all others have by 14 votes. So that means that jury didn’t vote with paying attention to details and event missed to vote.


Some judges and organizer are in telegram AMA session group - no response. Just need to congrats the winners and don’t wait that something will be changed, this contest is “for the right guys”. >50% participators can’t understand why and how such results are possible…