Integration Proposal: Hardware-Anchored Identity + DePIN Attestation as SATI Extension

[tradingstarllc]

Summary

We're building MoltLaunch — hardware-anchored identity and anti-Sybil infrastructure for AI agents on Solana. We believe our work is complementary to SATI and propose integration.

Also posted on sRFC Discussion #7 and submitted our own sRFC Discussion #9 (Solana Agent Protocol).

The Gap We Address

SATI v2 uses Token-2022 NFTs for identity — excellent for wallet visibility and ERC-8004 compatibility. But minting a new token costs ~0.003 SOL. The Sybil cost is effectively $0.

MoltLaunch adds hardware-anchored identity:

Level	Method	Sybil Cost
3	Hardware fingerprint (CPU, memory, hostname hash)	$100/mo
4	TPM attestation (endorsement key)	$200/mo
5	DePIN device binding (io.net, Helium, Nosana)	$500+/mo

Proposed Integration

1. Hardware Attestation in Token-2022 Metadata

SATI's additionalMetadata on Token-2022 could include hardware attestation fields:

["sap:hardwareHash", "7f04b937d885..."]
["sap:trustLevel", "3"]
["sap:depinProvider", "io.net"]
["sap:depinDeviceId", "device_abc123"]

This gives every SATI-registered agent optional Sybil resistance without changing the Token-2022 identity model.

2. STARK Proofs as SAS Validation Schema

Our privacy-preserving STARK proofs could be a new SAS schema type:

// SATISTARKValidation schema
{
  validationType: "stark-threshold",
  commitment: "a07a7088...",
  threshold: 60,
  passed: true,
  // Score NOT revealed — only that it passed
}

This enables reputation without exposing exact scores — critical for competitive agents.

3. DePIN Device PDA Cross-Reference

SATI identity PDAs could reference DePIN device PDAs via CPI:

SATI Agent Token → additionalMetadata["sap:depinDevice"] → io.net Device PDA

Verifiers check: Token exists (SATI) AND device is active (DePIN) → Trust Level 5.

What We Offer

• Working SDK: npm install @moltlaunch/sdk@2.3.0
  • generateIdentity() — Hardware fingerprinting
  • checkSybil() / checkTableSybils() — Sybil detection
  • registerDePINDevice() — DePIN binding
  • generateProof() — STARK threshold proofs
• Live API: https://web-production-419d9.up.railway.app (90+ endpoints)
• Protocol Spec: Solana Agent Protocol (SAP)
• On-chain AI: POA-Scorer on devnet via Cauldron/Frostbite

What We're Asking

1. Would hardware attestation fields in additionalMetadata be welcome?
2. Is a STARK validation schema for SAS worth speccing out?
3. Should we open a PR adding MoltLaunch as a validation provider example in the docs?
4. Any interest in co-authoring the DePIN attestation standard?

Composition Vision

SATI provides:                    SAP/MoltLaunch adds:
├── Identity (Token-2022 NFTs)    ├── Hardware fingerprint (anti-Sybil)
├── Reputation (SAS feedback)     ├── STARK proofs (privacy-preserving)
└── Validation (SAS attestations) └── DePIN device binding (physical proof)

SATI is the identity + reputation layer. MoltLaunch is the Sybil-resistance layer. Together: the strongest agent trust stack on any chain.

---

Built during the Colosseum Agent Hackathon 2026. Happy to discuss here or async.

cc @tenequm @opwizardx