Code Quill @CodeQuillClaim

@ETHGlobal Can’t wait to be there 🎉

ETHGlobal New York Spotlight. 🗽✨ Book Of Ethereum will be featured alongside @CodeQuillClaim during ETHGlobal NYC. 🙏📖 Last year at @ETHGlobal NYC was the moment CodeQuill was born and first revealed. Almost one year later, @dadajuice_crypto kept building through the noise and turned the vision into something real for Ethereum’s future. 👇 CodeQuill is building an onchain memory layer for software: preserving source history, release intent and software lineage in a world where code is evolving faster than ever. This is the type of Ethereum aligned infrastructure and frontier building that deserves attention. We are grateful as BOOElievers to receive recognition from an organization like @ETHGlobal and we will take this opportunity with both hands. And NYC doesn’t stop there… Book Of Ethereum is organizing it’s own side event togheter with @strato_net during @ethconf NYC bringing together Ethereum culture, builders, memes, HardFi and community. 🍸⚡ Come meet the BOOElievers, experience the energy of Ethereum culture and be part of what we are building together in NYC. Let’s make this year’s edition Epic🙏🙏🙏📖 Sign up for our event👇 luma.com/of3zm3c5

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@0xTwilty @dadajuice @Bookof_Eth $BOOE holders have great quota boost when using CodeQuill 👀

⭐️ Introducing ETHGlobal New York Spotlight: @CodeQuillClaim An onchain memory for software — preserving source states, release intent, and lineage claims in a world where code is produced faster than it can be. ethglob.al/oxMQOTu | codequill.xyz

Nine months. Eight immutable contracts. One thesis. CodeQuill is live on @base. Source code is the most reproduced asset in the world. And the least preserved. Repos vanish. Authorship gets murky. History gets rewritten. CodeQuill writes the receipts as code is built. On-chain, immutable, verifiable by anyone. Memory infrastructure for software. codequill.xyz

ethux.design

@Bookof_Eth @notfeven 100% fact

@strato_net 🤣🤣🤣 bonus points for the UPPERCASE

@wmougayar @614D05 @EthCC Highly interesting talk!

@Bookof_Eth @dadajuice 🙏

𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗤𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 As we get closer to release, the core CodeQuill smart contracts are open. These contracts implement the on-chain primitives the system is built on: claims of authority, source snapshots, releases, attestations, preservation, and delegation. They are fully permissionless. Anyone can inspect them, reason about them, and build on top of them. Their job is narrow but critical: record durable facts. What source code existed. When it existed. Under whose authority. What claims were made about it. The application layer coordinates, through our CLI and Web interface, the workflows, surfaces evidence, and makes these primitives usable at scale. But the rules that govern the evidence live on-chain, in the open. If CodeQuill is meant to preserve evidence, the mechanisms that record that evidence must themselves be visible and understandable. Architecture diagrams, a permission matrix, and threat model notes are included to make the design legible, not just executable. Ethereum works best when infrastructure explains itself. Repository: github.com/codequill-clai… If this is interesting to you, starring the repo and following along on GitHub is the best way to stay close to where the work happens. Much more coming soon.

Supply chain attacks expose a deeper gap. We rely on dependency trees we don’t control, but we don’t preserve durable records of what source states and releases we actually depended on at a given moment. So after the incident, we reconstruct. We don’t reference. That distinction matters more as code generation accelerates.

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗩𝗜 - 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗮𝗴𝗲 Once a release is defined, another question follows: What artifacts are claimed to originate from it? In CodeQuill, this is handled through attestations. An 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 records a statement made by an authority: that a given artifact claims lineage from a specific release. It is a claim — not a proof. CodeQuill does not observe how the artifact was built. It does not guarantee build causality. Instead, it preserves the statement itself as evidence: who made the claim, what artifact was referenced, and which release it was associated with. That distinction matters. Attestations allow lineage claims to be examined later — compared against preserved source states and evaluated in context, even if build systems, logs, or registries are no longer available. They turn assumptions into explicit records. So trust can be reasoned about — not inferred.

@Bookof_Eth We hope the EF will take notice of CodeQuill soon and what we are trying to achieve 🙏 we plan on releasing publicly very soon the whole smart contract architecture underneath CodeQuill and start the beta (free of use) for everyone willing to participate ❤️

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗩 — 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 At some point, software moves from source code to release. A specific repository state is selected and declared as the version meant to ship, govern, or be referenced. Yet this moment — the intent to release — is rarely preserved explicitly. In CodeQuill, this is where 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 come in. A Release is a deterministic, human-readable record linking a repository snapshot to an explicit release intent, recorded at a point in time under a specific authority. It is: • evidence of selection • evidence of intent to release • evidence of coordination A Release declares: this source state is what we intend to release. That declaration can come directly from the repository authority or through external governance — such as DAO voting or other approval processes. This makes a release more than a technical event. It becomes a coordination point between code, governance, and infrastructure — a stable reference that other systems can rely on: governance decisions, ENS records, and downstream artifact attestations. By making release intent explicit and durable, CodeQuill turns what is usually an implicit step into a verifiable record. Releases become the point where source code and governance meet.

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗜𝗩 — 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 Once a source state is preserved, a simple question often follows: Did a specific file actually exist in that state? This question appears during audits, after incidents, or when changes are disputed and trust becomes uncertain. CodeQuill is designed to answer it without ambiguity. From a preserved source state, an authority can produce a proof that a specific file was included — not by assertion, but by reference to preserved evidence. Producing the proof may require authority, because revealing it can disclose details. But verifying the proof does not. Once shared, anyone can independently verify it through cryptographic checks against the preserved record. The proof answers a narrow question: Was this file part of the preserved source state at that moment? It does not interpret intent or justify behavior. But that narrow question matters. Because it moves discussions from speculation to verifiable fact.

@0xTwilty @ethereum @Bookof_Eth Conviction always looks irrational from the outside. The difference between a narrative and a community is time. One fades with the market cycle, the other survives it.

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗜𝗜𝗜 - 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗱𝘆 Preserving evidence is not the same thing as backing up data. Backups are operational. They assume access, recovery processes, and administrative control. Evidence preservation is different. Its purpose is not convenience or availability. Its purpose is to ensure that facts can still be inspected long after systems, organizations, or platforms have changed. In CodeQuill, preservation means preserving the complete source code associated with a snapshot — the exact files and contents that existed at that moment — bound to an already recorded piece of evidence. The source code is encrypted client-side, before it leaves the local environment, and remains unreadable without explicit authority. This is intentional. Preserving evidence should not expand custody, centralize access, or introduce recovery dependencies on CodeQuill itself. CodeQuill cannot read preserved source code, and it cannot recover it on behalf of users. Preservation exists for audits, investigations, and long time horizons — not for builds, not for deployment, and not for operational workflows. Encrypted preservation is optional. It complements provenance records It ensures that evidence can survive change.

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗜𝗜 - 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 (𝗦𝗻𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘁) Source code is often referenced indirectly. By a commit hash. By a branch name. By a repository state that is assumed, but rarely preserved. But assumptions are not evidence. To reason about provenance, the source itself must become a fact. A snapshot captures a repository at a specific moment — the exact contents that existed, under a specific authority — and turns that state into a concrete record. Not an interpretation. Not a summary. A description of what existed. 𝗦𝗻𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁. A concrete, verifiable record of what existed at a given moment, under a given authority. This matters because provenance cannot start from ambiguity. If the source state is unclear, everything that follows inherits that uncertainty. CodeQuill snapshots are produced locally, where the code already exists. They describe source state deterministically and preserve it as durable evidence. Once recorded, a snapshot provides a stable reference point — builds, attestations, and investigations can point back to over time. This does not prove how software was built. It makes the source state explicit. Snapshots make source code a fact. Provenance can begin from there.

@Cryptotarzan19 Soon 👀

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗜 - 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁 (𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺) In most software systems, authority is implicit. It is inferred from access: who can push code, merge branches, or run pipelines. But access changes. Credentials rotate. Automation evolves. Over time, it becomes difficult to answer a simple question: who was actually allowed to speak for this repository at that moment? CodeQuill makes authority explicit. A 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 records which authority is allowed to publish evidence for a repository. It does not describe what was built, or how. It establishes who is authorized to make statements about the source. This distinction matters. Execution can be delegated — to developer machines, CI systems, or automation — without changing who ultimately speaks for the repository. By separating authority from execution, CodeQuill reduces ambiguity about authorship and responsibility over time. Claims do not prove intent. They do not guarantee correctness. They make authority visible. In provenance systems, clarity about who can speak matters as much as clarity about what existed.