Small Grant: IP Protection Infrastructure for Architectural Design Marketplace (Builtattic)

Introduction

Project Name:
IP Protection & Ownership Verification Layer for Builtattic

Name of the organization or individual submitting the proposal:
Akshat Chaturvedi, Founder, Builtattic Pvt. Ltd.

Describe your project

Builtattic is a global architecture marketplace that enables architects to commercialize templatized building designs while preserving ownership and control of their most valuable intellectual property: working drawings.

The platform separates public discovery from private delivery. Only low-risk assets (renders, summaries, conceptual plans) are publicly visible. Working drawings are stored using decentralized storage, encrypted, and released only after purchase through a permissioned, buyer-specific delivery flow with verifiable access records.

An earlier version of this idea was submitted in the past with limited clarity and maturity. Since then, the founder and core technical team intentionally paused the project to gain deeper professional, production-grade experience across engineering, operations, and product execution. A few months ago, the project was restarted from first principles with tighter scope, clearer milestones, and a storage-centric execution plan.

To date, the team has built and tested working prototypes using Filecoin and Polygon, validating demand for IP-protected delivery. This proposal represents a more focused, execution-ready version of the same idea, aligned closely with Sia’s strengths in user-owned, permissioned data storage.

Who benefits from your project?

Primary beneficiaries are independent architects, small and mid-sized firms, architecture students, and boutique studios who currently avoid publishing build-ready designs online due to IP theft.

Secondary beneficiaries include developers, contractors, and individual builders who gain access to authenticated, constructible designs instead of inspiration-only content.

How does the project serve the Foundation’s mission of user-owned data?

The project enforces creator-owned data by default. Working drawings are never public, never indexed, and never accessible without explicit, purchase-triggered permission. Access is encrypted, attributable, and verifiable, ensuring architects retain control over who can access their data, when, and under what conditions.

Decentralized storage is used as infrastructure, not as a user-facing abstraction.

Compliance

Are you a resident of any jurisdiction on that list?
No

Will your payment bank account be located in any jurisdiction on that list?
No

Grant Specifics

Amount of money requested
USD 10,000

Justification and Breakdown (3 Months)

Engineering: $4,167 (41.7%)

  • Core platform and storage workflow development
  • Secure upload, encryption, and Sia-based retrieval
  • Permissioned access control and delivery logic
  • Ongoing fixes and system stabilization

Onboarding & Testing: $3,267 (32.7%)

  • Controlled onboarding of architecture firms and associates
  • Testing with real, production-scale design files
  • Reliability, performance, and failure-case validation

Documentation & Software: $1,567 (15.7%)

  • Open-source code cleanup and refactoring
  • Technical setup guides and developer documentation
  • Architecture and usage documentation

Compliance & Contingencies: $1,000 (10.0%)

  • Grant reporting and milestone tracking
  • Legal and administrative requirements
  • Execution contingencies during pilot delivery

Budget Allocation (3 Months)

  • Engineering: $4,167 (41.7%)
  • Onboarding & Testing: $3,267 (32.7%)
  • Documentation & Software: $1,567 (15.7%)
  • Compliance & Contingencies: $1,000 (10.0%)

Total: $10,000 (100%)

Explicitly Out of Scope

  • Marketing or promotion
  • Hardware or physical infrastructure
  • Team expansion
  • Non-Sia integrations

Expected Outcomes

Qualitative

  • Sia-backed secure delivery MVP live
  • Successful storage and retrieval of real architectural design datasets
  • Active onboarding and paid usage from early architecture partners
  • Open-source codebase and technical documentation
  • Clear validation for post-pilot expansion and follow-on funding

Quantitative

  • $8–10K gross sales value (GSV)
  • $2–3K projected net revenue from early marketplace and subscriptions
  • 250+ subscriptions sold (AI + construction management)
  • 3–5 countries entered to validate cross-border digital sales
  • ~$30–40 customer acquisition cost during pilot phase

Payment method:
USD via ACH or wire (as required)

Timeline with measurable objectives and goals

Project Milestones (3 Months)

The pilot is structured as a 3-month execution cycle with clear milestones, focused on SMB supply onboarding and Tier III–V demand validation.

Milestone 1: Infrastructure & SMB Onboarding Setup

Timeline: Month 1

Strategy Focus:

  • Supply: SMB architecture firms in Tier I–II cities
  • Demand: Customers in Tier III–V cities seeking affordable, ready solutions

Objectives:

  • Finalize core platform infrastructure
  • Deploy secure storage and delivery workflows
  • Prepare onboarding flows for firms, associates, and students

Key Outcomes:

  • Marketplace, AI tool, and management tool live in pilot mode
  • 45+ architecture firms and 45+ associates onboarded
  • Initial subscriptions activated (AI + construction management)
  • Platform ready for first paid transactions

Milestone 2: Initial Traction & Validation

Timeline: Month 2

Strategy Focus:

  • Convert early SMB supply into paid usage
  • Validate demand from Tier III–V buyers

Objectives:

  • Begin paid sales and subscriptions
  • Track usage, conversion, and CAC
  • Expand footprint beyond initial cities

Key Outcomes:

  • 30+ paid marketplace users
  • 100+ total subscriptions across AI and management tools
  • Presence across 2–4 countries
  • ~$2.5K in combined subscription and marketplace revenue
  • Measurable engagement and retention metrics

Milestone 3: Scale Signals & Post-Pilot Readiness

Timeline: Month 3

Strategy Focus:

  • Strengthen SMB repeat usage
  • Prove cross-border demand and scalability

Objectives:

  • Achieve full pilot targets
  • Prepare for post-pilot fundraising and expansion

Key Outcomes:

  • ~$8K+ GSV generated during pilot
  • Remaining Subscription + Sale Targets met
  • Stable marketplace with AI wrapper (v1)
  • Validated CAC (~$30) and unit economics
  • Presence in up to ~5 countries
  • Clear readiness for a $0.5M seed round for R&D, expansion, and global GTM

Evaluation Criteria

Each milestone is verified through:

  • Live product functionality
  • Paid usage and subscriptions
  • Revenue and GMV
  • Geographic and user footprint

Potential risks that will affect the outcome of the project

  • Slower onboarding due to trust requirements in IP-sensitive domains
  • Higher initial manual effort for seller validation
  • Adoption friction in conservative architecture markets

These risks are mitigated through manual early onboarding, templatization, and pilot-first execution.

Development Information

Will all of your project’s code be open-source?
Yes.

All grant-supported code will be released under an OSI-compliant open-source license (MIT).

Closed-source components:
None. Third-party services may be used, but no closed-source code will be developed under this grant.

Code access:
Repositories will be publicly accessible and maintained throughout the grant period.

Links:

  1. Unified Platform - Working Prototype
    GitHub - akshat-chv/Builtattic-Unified
    (Check the shopify parallel on www.builtattic.com)

  2. Filecoin Application in Project - Working Prototype
    GitHub - akshat-chv/filecoin-ArchIP-Security: Decentralized IP protection layer built on Filecoin for storing, time-stamping, and verifying ownership of digital assets. Enables creators and platforms to securely publish, sell, and prove authorship of files without exposing raw IP. Designed for marketplaces, creator economies, and enterprise IP workflows.

  3. Construction Management Tool - Working Prototype
    GitHub - akshat-chv/Builtattic-ConstructionManagement

  4. AI Conceptualization Tool - Working Prototype
    (Hosted at: www.builtattic.in)
    (Access Code - 0ai2wtQ9)

Reporting

Do you agree to submit monthly progress reports?
Yes.

Progress reports will be submitted monthly in the forum.

Contact Info

Email:
[email protected]

Other contact methods:
LinkedIn: /in/akshat-cv/
GitHub: /akshat-chv

infusing filecoin for IP protection is a great idea! excited to see more

Welcome.

  • New developers are generally asked to do a small grant.
  • This budget definitely violates what the foundation wont fund: marketing, hardware, physical space.
  • The budget should be in text likely, not an infographic.
  • To date, the team has built and tested working prototypes using Filecoin and Polygon, validating demand for IP-protected delivery.
    • You mean to say you asked Filecoin for funding since Sia denied you and now your hoping to try again?
    • If so, then that means you created a second account as your account is new but your referring to this as a past grant proposal by the same group? If not, then please clarify.
  • Lastly the committee rules are generally a no-go with mixing other blockchains unless you have a good justification.
  • Oh and it seems a bit obvious titikshaha-dot is clearing astrosurfing as a second new account…

Kudos.

Hey, just a quick note. I’m part of the Builtattic team (junior dev) and commented earlier out of excitement, not to create any artificial traction at all.
I see now how it might look, so I’ll step back and let the main account handle things from here.
Apologies for the confusion :)

1 Like

Hey, thanks a lot for taking the time to write this up. Super helpful feedback.

Just clearing a few things up on our side:

  1. Grant size / new developer bit
    We misunderstood this one. We thought “new developer” was about team makeup, not scope limits. The larger budget was really just us trying to move faster, not stretch the rules. Happy to adjust here.
  2. Budget format
    Fair call. We already have a text-based budget in a sheet. We can link it or edit the post directly, whatever’s preferred. (Edited in the post above)
  3. Prior Sia context
    No prior denial from Sia. Back in May 2023, a different team member applied under a different startup. That team later split, everyone went off to gain experience, and this is the first time we’re applying with this company and this version of the idea. The mention was just to say we’ve been around the Sia ecosystem before.
  4. Multiple accounts concern
    No astroturfing intended. The account you noticed belongs to a junior dev who got a bit excited and commented. Totally understand how it looks, and we’re happy to keep everything under one account going forward.
  5. Multiple chains mention
    That was meant more as a demo of capability than a product decision. We’re not deployed cross-chain right now and are totally fine scoping this proposal purely around Sia. Proper integration would only take a day or two on our end.

Thanks again for the candid feedback. We’ll clean things up and revise accordingly.

You will be interested in Global Grants Program | Sia as to what is a do/don’t.

Welcome to Sia.

I will clarify this a bit further. New developer means your reputation and trust with the Sia community and foundation. New builders to the ecosystem are expected to start off small, a MVP before evolving what they ask for. So it is kind of both how much your known to the ecosystem and how much your asking for/scope.

Kudos.

Thanks for pointing us to the Global Grants Program and the do’s/don’ts. We went through it and got clarity on scope vs. expectations. We’ve updated the proposal accordingly to better align with the program. Appreciate the nudge.

Thanks for the clarification and guidance, that helps a lot. We’ve revised the scope and budget to reflect a tighter MVP-first approach. Looking forward to your thoughts on the updated version and the direction overall.

I would put ALL project details in text and not keep milestones in an infographic either.

Thanks for the suggestion. All core project details and milestones are already documented in text within the proposal. The graphics are included only as supporting material for quick context and readability. Happy to adjust if needed, but the primary submission is text-complete.

Appreciate the guidance.

Hi @akshat-chv - welcome to the Sia community and thanks for your proposal!

I see the overall duration for your proposal is 6 months which is not ordinarily the case for Small Grants (max. 3 months). Is there a reason why the additional time is needed?

Also, we now require a high-level project architecture to be included and information on your security best practices in your proposal. More details can be found in the Grants Development Guide.

Please address the above by January 14th in order for your proposal to be considered at the Committee meeting on January 20th. Please tag me when you’re ready to have it reviewed again.

Hi @mecsbecs, thank you so much for the warm welcome and for taking the time to go through the proposal.

You’re right about the duration. That was a leftover reference from an earlier draft. We’ve now fully aligned the pilot to a 3 month scope to match the Small Grants requirements.

We’ve also updated the proposal to include:

  • A clear, high level project architecture focused specifically on the Sia storage layer and integration points
  • A concise section outlining our security best practices, including encryption, access control, and permissioned delivery flows, in line with the Grants Development Guide

Thanks again for the guidance. Really appreciate it and looking forward to your feedback.

1 Like