# Request for Funding @scilio (CoinSwap Implementation)

**URL:** https://forum.grin.mw/t/request-for-funding-scilio-coinswap-implementation/9149
**Category:** Governance
**Created:** [July 28, 2021, 9:31am UTC](https://forum.grin.mw/t/request-for-funding-scilio-coinswap-implementation/9149 "2021-07-28T09:31:37Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 49

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![scilio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@scilio](https://forum.grin.mw/u/scilio)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2021, 11:54am UTC](https://forum.grin.mw/t/request-for-funding-scilio-coinswap-implementation/9149/49 "2021-11-01T11:54:22Z")

</div>

> [@tromp](#):
>
> The commitment should not be separate, but there should be one in every payload, so the node knows which excess to apply to which commitment.

The excess is in each payload. Why does the commitment need to be there also?

Under [data provision](https://forum.grin.mw/t/mimblewimble-coinswap-proposal/8322#data-provision-5) of your design, the inner nodes `j ∈ {2...n-1}` are to be provided with

- commitment Ci,j-1
- excess share xi,j

Since Ci,j-1 is actually calculated by node `j-1`, I don’t understand why we would need for it to be part of the encrypted payload.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.grin.mw/t/request-for-funding-scilio-coinswap-implementation/9149)._