MRC94: Capital claim mint to Arbitrum or Base (preferred dual path)

[EnergyHound]

Summary

Adds MRC94: capital-side MOR claim/mint destination.

Option	End state	Preference
B	Per-claim mint to Arbitrum or Base	Preferred
A	Mint claims to Base only	Fallback if dual-path bid is untenable

Includes thought process, dual-request process, and a Request for Bids to the Smart Contract Developer (both options priced before scope freezes).

Not part of compute upgrades (bugs / hot-cold / stake / registry).

Handles (aliases / roles only)

• EnergyHound — requestor / author
• BowtiedBlueFin — technical inputs
• SmartAgents — maintainer / Smart Contracts MRI surface
• Smart Contract Developer — bid respondent (role title only)

Why MRC94

Open PRs reserve 91–93 for unrelated compute/runtime work (#85, #86).

Duplicate check

No existing MRC specifies capital claim mint chain destination as Arb and/or Base. Related but different: MRC43, MRC56, MRC64, MRC16/32/33, MRC72, MRC89.

Immediate asks

1. SmartAgents — Discussion merge if merit.
2. Smart Contract Developer (assignee via SmartAgents) — respond to the Request for Bids for B and A separately (MRC section 5). Prefer pricing B. Deadline: 5 business days from the bid-request comment.
3. Discord discussion_url when thread is open.

Maintainer can modify: enabled.

[EnergyHound]

Request for Bids — MRC94 capital claim mint destination

Preferred product outcome: Option B — capital claims mint to Arbitrum or Base (one destination per claim, user-selectable).
Option A — Base-only — is a fallback if dual-path bid is untenable.

Context

• Surface: capital distribution / claim / mint only.
• Not in scope: compute upgrades, provider stake redesign, model registry, emission math.
• Authors/handles: EnergyHound, BowtiedBlueFin; maintainer surface SmartAgents.
• Bid respondent role: Smart Contract Developer (assigned by SmartAgents).

For EACH option (B preferred, then A) provide separately

1. Contracts touched (named)
2. Design approach (≤15 lines)
3. Hours: low / likely / high
4. Calendar: start → testnet → mainnet-ready
5. Dependencies
6. Risks (double-mint, message loss, upgrade breakage, pause, wrong-chain UX)
7. Test plan
8. Audit recommendation
9. Open questions
10. Optional weights for that option only

Bid response template

## MRC94 Bid Response — Smart Contract Developer — [alias or role] — [Date]

### Option B — Dual mint (Arbitrum or Base) [PREFERRED]
- Contracts touched:
- Design approach (≤15 lines):
- Hours (low / likely / high):
- Calendar (testnet / mainnet-ready):
- Dependencies:
- Risks:
- Test plan:
- Audit recommendation:
- Open questions:
- Suggested weights (optional):

### Option A — Base-only mint [FALLBACK]
- Contracts touched:
- Design approach (≤15 lines):
- Hours (low / likely / high):
- Calendar (testnet / mainnet-ready):
- Dependencies:
- Risks:
- Test plan:
- Audit recommendation:
- Open questions:
- Suggested weights (optional):

### Comparison (required)
- Hour ratio B/A (likely):
- Single biggest risk that differs between A and B:
- Recommendation (B / A / A now B later) and one-sentence why:
- Discovery spike needed? (no / yes — hours and questions):

Deadline: 5 business days from this comment. Reply on this PR.

Full text: MRC94.md in this PR.