Yes. github.com/srbde is a fully open-source (MIT) organization built entirely around our Hive offerings: a coordinated multi-language SDK layer plus supporting tooling.
2. Is it relatively unique?
A few things that set it apart from another front-end clone:
Four-language SDK coverage in one coordinated suite — hive-nectar (Python), hive-pollen (TypeScript), hive-xylem (Rust), hive-anther (Go). Most Hive tooling efforts are single-language.
hive-nectar is the actively maintained successor to beem, the old Python library a lot of existing bots and front-ends still quietly depend on, which hasn't been updated in years.
nectarengine covers the Hive-Engine sidechain/token layer, not just base-layer Hive — most tooling stops at the base layer.
hoverfly, a mock Hive node for testing, so test suites don't need to hit a live node.
NectarPay, an x402-paid Hive account-creation API live on Base mainnet, built to onboard autonomous AI agents into Hive through the x402/MCP payment ecosystem — a new integration point rather than another clone.
Documentation written llms.txt-style, specifically for AI coding agents to parse — which lines up with exactly what this proposal exists to fund.
Everything above is public and MIT-licensed — happy to have you or Claude go through any of it directly.
3. Are you actively working on it?
Yes, ongoing with my partner @thecrazygm (who is not applying currently) — most recently we shipped NectarPay to mainnet, with continuing SDK and documentation work across the suite.
On accountability, not check-ins
To be clear — I have no issue with people checking in, and no issue with transparency. I'll write more updates about this than anyone else in the queue; I've been a consistent, trusted presence in this community for a long time, and I'm glad to meet with you or anyone else who wants to talk through progress, privately or publically - anytime.
For whatever we've disagreed on over the years — and there's been some — I think we obviously must agree on one thing: this style of proposal, directly managed dev-support funded through the DHF, is genuinely worth having. It's a good idea, its public (or should be) and it deserves an honest shot at working, not just another write off. I'd rather be a part of proving that out than another data point against it - I will be the best candidate.
What I won't do is modify my (already working) workflow and treat a monthly renewal as a precondition for the funds themselves. The last proposal shaped this way — @deathwing's — produced no visible follow-through: 100 or 200 dollars for a month - and no posts, no reported results, nothing to show for the DHF spend. I'm not saying that to be unkind, and credit where it's due — running this whole process out in the open, the way you're doing, is a real improvement on that. But it also means the format hasn't proven itself yet, and I'd rather offer something stronger than a monthly check-in: a full year of documented process and progress on Hive, on the record, whether or not anyone asks for it.
So here's what I'm proposing: a single $200 allocation - I am updating my year of pro for this amount in 2 weeks - and in exchange I commit to posting my process and progress throughout the year and meeting with anyone who wants to talk it through, throughout the year.
If that doesn't fit how you want to run this, that's okay — I'd rather say so now.
@ecoinstant