Subscribe to blockful
<100 subscribers
The growing narrative of on-chain reputation has become prominent since several Devcons ago. This narrative is often accompanied by an optimistic view of the ecosystem, especially when addressing voting power, resource allocation, and the selection of members for various roles within a community or DAO, whether it be a position within the DAO itself or as part of a Security Council, for example.
The governance models, which are unsurprisingly plutocratic, have led a portion of the community—those who do not yet hold tokens but still wish to contribute to governance—to look towards reputation. This serves as a form of track record, a request for active and positive contributions to be recognized as a certain type of power in a space that relies heavily on token-based systems (oh, hi tokenomics).
https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html
There is so much to discuss regarding reputation. The first point to consider is in which spaces and DAOs on-chain reputation makes sense. I also understand the reasons behind the prevailing governance models. Plutocratic structures attract investors' attention, and, well... everyone needs funding. This was how many DAOs found their footing initially.
A first wave of investors, who obtained tokens when everything was still bright and colorful during the DeFi summer (or even before), are reluctant to lose their power. However, it must be noted that many of these holders are no longer active in governance or have fallen into a cycle of repeating the same proposals, the same voting patterns, and the same predictable behaviors. This helps explain why many DAOs have stagnated—without even considering price fluctuations and focusing solely on governance structure.
A second wave of users, especially those who arrived post-DeFi summer, recognized the potential to be active participants in DAOs, seeing it as a win-win relationship. We all know that active member who contributes in various ways but lacks a significant amount of governance tokens or any on-chain proof of their contributions to the DAO. It’s clear that the member suffers from a lack of recognition, and the DAO loses out on having an engaged contributor.
Acknowledging this situation, I embarked on the journey to build a reputation product. I have previously written an article outlining the history of this product, which started in Argentina in 2023, and the challenges of, first and foremost, understanding what reputation is. It is a rather vague definition, and we must work within that framework.
Trustful has gone through three MVP versions and involved discussions with key figures in the ecosystem to help me understand the product while the team builds it. I remember the moment I realized I was creating an attestation layer—despite it being obvious since we were using EAS as a foundation.
It happened during a call with Matty, who is now building Legion. He mentioned, "Oh, we are not building this attestation layer," and I thought to myself, "Oh, that's what I'm building—an attestation layer." It seemed so obvious at the time, but thank you, Matty, that was quite helpful.
From the outset, I have sought sustainable development. As a point of curiosity, Blockful, which is developing Trustful, is bootstrapped. Therefore, I pursued funding through grants that have allowed me to develop different phases of the product across various ecosystems to understand the best path forward and the array of potential use cases ahead.
Some time ago, I applied for funding from the Zuzalu community. It was already an ecosystem where I felt it made a lot of sense to have a reputation layer, especially during events. We secured initial funding and built the first phase of what I (and Zeugh, of course, who did all the work to bring this product to life) envisioned for a roadmap: the Reputation Badges.
At the event, people could give reputation badges to each other. To avoid defining what reputation means for them (and this is why we committed to being an aggregator), we allowed them to choose which badges would be interesting. We received various inputs, such as badges related to "showed me a cool tech," "good talk," and more. About 176 badges were issued during the event, all focused on quality interactions. Well, 176 quality interactions centered around good dialogues and active participation... which opens the door for the community to:
Reward these members in the future
Increase voting power, whether in hackathons or not
Decide on organizers and key members who may participate in future events
And more...
Why? Members with active and quality participation will better understand the needs of a particular community. The difference is that now they have a badge to prove it.
I met Anke during ETH Denver, and it was a very interesting coincidence; I was almost euphoric to meet someone who was also knowledgeable about reputation and already working in this area. It was incredible to discuss ideas with her, and she shared a lot of interesting materials with me.
I participated in a round of the Stellar Community Fund (SCF) as a way to understand more about the ecosystem and how this would work at the community level, both virtually and in a distinct programming language.
The MVP version consisted of reputation badges and a scorer, and we are now adding a second part of the roadmap: the added value for each reputation badge, that is, for each attestation.
https://trustful-stellar.vercel.app/
The product is ready; members can claim an early adopter reputation badge, and we are now participating in another round to facilitate the decentralization of the contracts. This will enable us to create a badge factory where each community can create its own badges (currently, they come from Stellar Quests, Soroban Quests, and similar sources) and assign a score to each of them.
Some other features and use cases I envision beyond full decentralization in Stellar include a more robust profile tab, utilization for the ambassador program, and SCF using Trustful to better gauge the teams already part of the Stellar ecosystem.
I dream of running a QF round, reputation-based and on Stellar. This use case, indeed, I am excited to see.
In this initiative, we flipped our approach upside down. The focus shifted from aggregating reputation for members to enhancing the grants program. The Cartographers Syndicate is a community dedicated to mapping Web3 grants and incentives. Sov, who is primarily leading the community, introduced this brilliant vision of adding reputation to grants programs.
In the future, we can even select which members are key for each grants program, creating a kind of reputation-based match. This way, good builders won't apply for grants programs that have objectives far removed from what they want to construct, and vice versa. We have integrated with the Grant Registry in Karma GAP, allowing users with a Karma GAP account to contribute reputation to grants programs. We are considering badges such as "Smooth Application," "Fair Rounds," and many others, aiming to enhance and standardize grants programs based on applicant reviews.
While all three versions of Trustful are currently active, there is still much to build on our roadmap:
Issuer: The option to select a valid set of badges for specific actions and establish a list of valid addresses as issuers so that those badges are recognized.
Implementation of ZK or Other Privacy Tools: This would allow users to know that one of the issuers issued a reputation badge to them without revealing which specific issuer did so, thereby keeping that information private.
Resource Allocation: Utilizing reputation in a matching pool for grants, whether direct or through quadratic funding rounds, ensures that resources are allocated efficiently to deserving projects.
Role Selection: Reputation can play a crucial role in selecting key members for DAOs or Security Councils, such as moderators, ensuring that the most qualified individuals are chosen for critical roles.
Delegation Selection or Compensation: By assessing reputation, we can determine compensation for delegates or identify which members may receive more delegations during a re-delegation week.
Voting Power Multiplier: Reputation can enhance voting power within the community, allowing those with proven contributions to have a greater influence on decision-making processes.
Looking ahead, I envision Trustful incorporating identity solutions such as Gitcoin Passport, or even Legion and other interesting tools. The essence of being an aggregator is to avoid defining a fixed framework for reputation; instead, our goal is to aggregate various approaches and create composability among them. By doing so, we can foster a more dynamic and inclusive reputation ecosystem that adapts to the diverse needs of the community.
We are currently in the research phase for the construction of V1 and will be actively participating in Devcon. This is an opportunity for you to see the dApp at Devcon and provide us with valuable feedback. If you are interested in Trustful and would like to collaborate on building a use case with us, please reach out. We have a path to pave when it comes to governance and impact.
See ya!
I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude to the amazing Trustful team: Luiz, Leonardo, Zeugh, Rascar, Heron and Franco. Your dedication, creativity, and collaboration have been instrumental in bringing Trustful to life. Together, we are paving the way for a brighter future in governance and reputation!
The growing narrative of on-chain reputation has become prominent since several Devcons ago. This narrative is often accompanied by an optimistic view of the ecosystem, especially when addressing voting power, resource allocation, and the selection of members for various roles within a community or DAO, whether it be a position within the DAO itself or as part of a Security Council, for example.
The governance models, which are unsurprisingly plutocratic, have led a portion of the community—those who do not yet hold tokens but still wish to contribute to governance—to look towards reputation. This serves as a form of track record, a request for active and positive contributions to be recognized as a certain type of power in a space that relies heavily on token-based systems (oh, hi tokenomics).
https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html
There is so much to discuss regarding reputation. The first point to consider is in which spaces and DAOs on-chain reputation makes sense. I also understand the reasons behind the prevailing governance models. Plutocratic structures attract investors' attention, and, well... everyone needs funding. This was how many DAOs found their footing initially.
A first wave of investors, who obtained tokens when everything was still bright and colorful during the DeFi summer (or even before), are reluctant to lose their power. However, it must be noted that many of these holders are no longer active in governance or have fallen into a cycle of repeating the same proposals, the same voting patterns, and the same predictable behaviors. This helps explain why many DAOs have stagnated—without even considering price fluctuations and focusing solely on governance structure.
A second wave of users, especially those who arrived post-DeFi summer, recognized the potential to be active participants in DAOs, seeing it as a win-win relationship. We all know that active member who contributes in various ways but lacks a significant amount of governance tokens or any on-chain proof of their contributions to the DAO. It’s clear that the member suffers from a lack of recognition, and the DAO loses out on having an engaged contributor.
Acknowledging this situation, I embarked on the journey to build a reputation product. I have previously written an article outlining the history of this product, which started in Argentina in 2023, and the challenges of, first and foremost, understanding what reputation is. It is a rather vague definition, and we must work within that framework.
Trustful has gone through three MVP versions and involved discussions with key figures in the ecosystem to help me understand the product while the team builds it. I remember the moment I realized I was creating an attestation layer—despite it being obvious since we were using EAS as a foundation.
It happened during a call with Matty, who is now building Legion. He mentioned, "Oh, we are not building this attestation layer," and I thought to myself, "Oh, that's what I'm building—an attestation layer." It seemed so obvious at the time, but thank you, Matty, that was quite helpful.
From the outset, I have sought sustainable development. As a point of curiosity, Blockful, which is developing Trustful, is bootstrapped. Therefore, I pursued funding through grants that have allowed me to develop different phases of the product across various ecosystems to understand the best path forward and the array of potential use cases ahead.
Some time ago, I applied for funding from the Zuzalu community. It was already an ecosystem where I felt it made a lot of sense to have a reputation layer, especially during events. We secured initial funding and built the first phase of what I (and Zeugh, of course, who did all the work to bring this product to life) envisioned for a roadmap: the Reputation Badges.
At the event, people could give reputation badges to each other. To avoid defining what reputation means for them (and this is why we committed to being an aggregator), we allowed them to choose which badges would be interesting. We received various inputs, such as badges related to "showed me a cool tech," "good talk," and more. About 176 badges were issued during the event, all focused on quality interactions. Well, 176 quality interactions centered around good dialogues and active participation... which opens the door for the community to:
Reward these members in the future
Increase voting power, whether in hackathons or not
Decide on organizers and key members who may participate in future events
And more...
Why? Members with active and quality participation will better understand the needs of a particular community. The difference is that now they have a badge to prove it.
I met Anke during ETH Denver, and it was a very interesting coincidence; I was almost euphoric to meet someone who was also knowledgeable about reputation and already working in this area. It was incredible to discuss ideas with her, and she shared a lot of interesting materials with me.
I participated in a round of the Stellar Community Fund (SCF) as a way to understand more about the ecosystem and how this would work at the community level, both virtually and in a distinct programming language.
The MVP version consisted of reputation badges and a scorer, and we are now adding a second part of the roadmap: the added value for each reputation badge, that is, for each attestation.
https://trustful-stellar.vercel.app/
The product is ready; members can claim an early adopter reputation badge, and we are now participating in another round to facilitate the decentralization of the contracts. This will enable us to create a badge factory where each community can create its own badges (currently, they come from Stellar Quests, Soroban Quests, and similar sources) and assign a score to each of them.
Some other features and use cases I envision beyond full decentralization in Stellar include a more robust profile tab, utilization for the ambassador program, and SCF using Trustful to better gauge the teams already part of the Stellar ecosystem.
I dream of running a QF round, reputation-based and on Stellar. This use case, indeed, I am excited to see.
In this initiative, we flipped our approach upside down. The focus shifted from aggregating reputation for members to enhancing the grants program. The Cartographers Syndicate is a community dedicated to mapping Web3 grants and incentives. Sov, who is primarily leading the community, introduced this brilliant vision of adding reputation to grants programs.
In the future, we can even select which members are key for each grants program, creating a kind of reputation-based match. This way, good builders won't apply for grants programs that have objectives far removed from what they want to construct, and vice versa. We have integrated with the Grant Registry in Karma GAP, allowing users with a Karma GAP account to contribute reputation to grants programs. We are considering badges such as "Smooth Application," "Fair Rounds," and many others, aiming to enhance and standardize grants programs based on applicant reviews.
While all three versions of Trustful are currently active, there is still much to build on our roadmap:
Issuer: The option to select a valid set of badges for specific actions and establish a list of valid addresses as issuers so that those badges are recognized.
Implementation of ZK or Other Privacy Tools: This would allow users to know that one of the issuers issued a reputation badge to them without revealing which specific issuer did so, thereby keeping that information private.
Resource Allocation: Utilizing reputation in a matching pool for grants, whether direct or through quadratic funding rounds, ensures that resources are allocated efficiently to deserving projects.
Role Selection: Reputation can play a crucial role in selecting key members for DAOs or Security Councils, such as moderators, ensuring that the most qualified individuals are chosen for critical roles.
Delegation Selection or Compensation: By assessing reputation, we can determine compensation for delegates or identify which members may receive more delegations during a re-delegation week.
Voting Power Multiplier: Reputation can enhance voting power within the community, allowing those with proven contributions to have a greater influence on decision-making processes.
Looking ahead, I envision Trustful incorporating identity solutions such as Gitcoin Passport, or even Legion and other interesting tools. The essence of being an aggregator is to avoid defining a fixed framework for reputation; instead, our goal is to aggregate various approaches and create composability among them. By doing so, we can foster a more dynamic and inclusive reputation ecosystem that adapts to the diverse needs of the community.
We are currently in the research phase for the construction of V1 and will be actively participating in Devcon. This is an opportunity for you to see the dApp at Devcon and provide us with valuable feedback. If you are interested in Trustful and would like to collaborate on building a use case with us, please reach out. We have a path to pave when it comes to governance and impact.
See ya!
I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude to the amazing Trustful team: Luiz, Leonardo, Zeugh, Rascar, Heron and Franco. Your dedication, creativity, and collaboration have been instrumental in bringing Trustful to life. Together, we are paving the way for a brighter future in governance and reputation!
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
No comments yet