Thank you for your observation. We will certainly take it into consideration. Please note that the current website is not the most up-to-date version, as we are actively working on resolving issues and ensuring everything is fully functional soon. Would you like us to notify you once we have the testing phase ready?
It gets interesting each time and thanks for your response, it’s quite impressive that you’re taking a decentralized approach to KYC/AML compliance, integrating with decentralized KYC/AML providers while maintaining transparency can significantly enhance trust in your platform.
Since KYC/AML requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction, how do you plan to handle regions with stricter regulations?
Thank you for being so curious about JustInsure.
We are researching on that part, I will get back to you regarding this.
Hi everyone, Quick Update on the UI, We have a new theme now. Let us know your review on this!
3 Likes
Hi Everyone, How is everyone doing? 
Besides the UI, I have a quick update regarding the smart contracts.
We have added meta txn support for most functions so gasless transactions for things like creating policies etc. (Though the entire ux is not gasless and can not be due to things like staking)
And most of the staking logic has also been revamped, will be deploying new contracts and integrating for a quick testable demo soon.
2 Likes
Word is bond @jriyyya I’m eagerly waiting and keeping fingers crossed 
1 Like
Hi, the UI looks good-to-go, is the rabbit 
inspired by the popular cartoon series; Looney Tunes?
Revamping the staking logic, deploying new contracts and meta-transaction support addition is a fantastic update! But I think, while you’re offering gasless transactions for certain functions, have you thought about a subsidy strategy? You could offer limited free gasless transactions for new users to encourage initial engagement.
It is looking very cool I like the colors
2 Likes
Welcome once again to season 7
Please after going through your project goal,I want more clarity on you ensure to secure the public contribution and also what programming language and infrastructure will be used in developing the premium.
Thanks and kudos to your team
@jriyyya
Thanks for your amazing clarity, Keep up the good work
1 Like
Honestly That was not intended but it looks quite similar to it XD
2 Likes
Thanks for pointing this out, We will update is and will necessarily include the things which you mentioned.
1 Like
Thanks for your response and buying my idea.
2 Likes
hey manfred, sorry for the late reply
We are subsidizing gas for only a few transactions
We can not support meta transactions for most of the popular stablecoins as they are not ERC2771 compliant
So, the gasless transactions are not designed as a feature but just as a “cheryy on cake” if you could call it that
And, these gasless txns are permanent for the reasons that we are charging a fee for all txns
so in the end we do not end up paying for gas out of our pockets anyways.
Thanks for the suggestion though, if we had our own implementation of a wrapped stablecoin this would be something really interesting to try out!
1 Like
This is really interesting, thanks for the clarification. Your approach makes sense, especially given the challenges with ERC-2771 compliance for popular stablecoins. Offering gasless transactions as a “cherry on the cake” is still a nice touch for user experience, even if it’s not a core feature. It’s also great that you’ve found a balance by charging fees to offset gas costs.
I’m just wondering, what specific transactions do you plan to subsidize for gas, and how will users know which transactions qualify for gasless execution?
2 Likes
Creating policies, buying policies and raising claims for policies all happen gaslessly
whereas functions not related to the functioning of the policy marketing system
like staking, surecoin redemption / withdrawal will require gas for transactions.
We can mark transactions as “This is a gasless transaction 
”
1 Like
Hi everyone,
We wanted to get your opinion on something. We’ve been a bit confused about our direction lately. We’ve deviated quite a lot from our original idea, which we planned last season, to the point where we’ve essentially rewritten everything from scratch. We’ve also shifted from a multi-repo setup to a mono-repo.
Some of you, like @manfred_jr and @ines_valerie, might have noticed that you didn’t actually get the chance to test anything in our project last season.
Meanwhile, many projects submitted in the Builder track are already complete, with some even winning prizes last season and adding new features this season.
In contrast, we feel that we might not fit into the Builder track anymore and might be better suited for the DeFi track. What do you think? Do you also feel we should apply to the DeFi track instead?
On an exciting note, we’re currently recording a video to showcase a demo and guide everyone on how to test our project. By tomorrow, you’ll be able to get hands-on with it! 
Looking forward to your feedback!
3 Likes
Thanks for the update! It’s really great to hear that key functions like creating, buying, and raising claims for policies are gasless, do you foresee any limits on the number of gasless transactions that users can perform, especially if platform activity scales up?
1 Like
yes, most likely we have to limit the amount of policies a new user can create
we may reduce the limit if a policy marketer has created successful policies in the past.
1 Like