Let's say there's a DApp that want to reduce UX friction for Alice, abstracting the need for ETH funding to participate in NuCypher as policy authors. For example, this DApp can accept whatever payment is better for Alices and act as a proxy to the NuCypher Network.

In an eye-opening discussion with @szotov, he points out that this can be done by the DApp by setting up a contract acting as the policy author. Since Alice's ETH key is not tied anyway with her cryptographic keys (i.e, signing, encryption, delegation), it seems that in principle this approach has a lot of sense for this use case.

On the other hand, this type of use case doesn't feel like something we should implement in our code base – in other words, it's not our problem. Except that if we want to increase traction, then we should make sure that it's doable, even if we don't do it.

The question is: is there something in the codebase preventing this use case from being possible?

Pinging @afrancht for the original discussion that led to this issue.