Why Reputation Must Be Asset-Agnostic

Reputation is not an NFT. Treating on-chain history as a non-fungible asset, like a Soulbound Token, fragments a user's identity across every protocol they interact with. This design forces users to rebuild credibility from zero on each new platform.

Asset-agnostic reputation is a public good. A user's trustworthiness, demonstrated through consistent behavior on Uniswap or responsible borrowing on Aave, is a portable credential. This data must be abstracted from the underlying token or contract to enable universal underwriting.

Siloed data creates systemic blind spots. A whale with pristine history on Compound can be a malicious actor on a nascent lending protocol. Without a unified view, the ecosystem cannot assess counterparty risk, leading to repeated, preventable exploits.

Evidence: The $200M+ in MEV extracted annually demonstrates that sophisticated actors exploit fragmented reputation. Systems like EigenLayer's restaking show the demand for trust portability, but they remain tied to a single asset (ETH).

Reputation is asset-agnostic because its value derives from verifiable on-chain history, not token holdings. A wallet's credibility for lending on Aave is separate from its governance power in Uniswap. This decoupling prevents Sybil attacks where capital alone buys influence.

Non-fungibility creates unique utility unlike fungible tokens. A Soulbound Token (SBT) from Ethereum Attestation Service representing a KYC credential is not interchangeable with a Gitcoin Passport score. Each attests to a specific, non-transferable facet of identity.

Portability across chains is mandatory. A user's reputation for reliable bridging via LayerZero or Axelar must be verifiable on both Arbitrum and Solana. Chain-agnostic standards like the proposed IBC for Ethereum are prerequisites for this, preventing ecosystem lock-in.

Evidence: The failure of purely capital-based governance in early DAOs like The DAO or Maker, contrasted with the rise of delegated reputation systems in Optimism's Citizen House, demonstrates the market demand for non-financial signaling.

Proof-of-Stake consensus is the canonical example. A validator's voting power and probability of proposing a block are directly proportional to their staked capital. This creates a trust-by-wealth dynamic where influence is purchased, not earned through reliable behavior.

DeFi collateralization requirements extend this logic. Protocols like Aave and MakerDAO require over-collateralization, treating deposited assets as the sole proxy for user trustworthiness. This design excludes users without significant capital, regardless of their historical on-chain integrity.

Cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero and Wormhole rely on staked guardians or validators. Their security guarantee is a financial bond, not a proven record of honest message relay. This makes sybil attacks a capital game, not a reputation challenge.

Evidence: The Ethereum validator set is dominated by large staking pools like Lido and Coinbase. This centralizes trust in a few wealthy entities, contradicting decentralization goals while being the system's designed outcome.

Asset-specific reputation creates systemic fragility. A user's standing in a lending protocol like Aave is siloed to that asset pool, creating redundant risk assessments and limiting capital efficiency across the DeFi stack.

Reputation is a user-level primitive, not an asset-level attribute. A user's creditworthiness or staking history is a property of their identity, independent of whether they interact with ETH, USDC, or a new LST. This mirrors how EigenLayer separates restaking consensus from specific AVSs.

Universal composability demands an agnostic standard. An asset-agnostic reputation score, built on a framework like EIP-7007 for zk attestations, becomes a portable credential. It enables undercollateralized borrowing on MakerDAO based on proven Solana staking history via Wormhole messages.

Evidence: The failure of isolated credit systems is visible in TradFi. Blockchain's advantage is a global state layer; replicating walled gardens with protocols like Compound or Lido defeats the purpose. The network effect of a shared reputation graph dwarfs any single-protocol benefit.

Financial staking is misaligned. It measures capital, not competence. A malicious actor with deep pockets can afford to slash their stake as a cost of business, while a high-skill operator lacks capital.

Reputation must be asset-agnostic. A validator's score should derive from on-chain performance metrics like liveness, latency, and correctness. This is the model for decentralized sequencers like Espresso Systems.

Staking centralizes power. Proof-of-Stake networks like Ethereum concentrate influence among large holders. An objective reputation graph based on work, not wealth, is the true decentralization mechanism.

Evidence: In intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap, solvers compete on execution quality, not bond size. Their reputation is their fill rate and price improvement, creating better outcomes than pure financial guarantees.

Reputation must be asset-agnostic. A user's trust score must be portable across any asset or chain, like a credit score. This breaks the silos created by today's staking-based systems, which lock reputation to specific tokens like ETH or SOL.

Agnosticism enables universal composability. A reputation score built on Solana must be usable to secure a bridge on Arbitrum or a lending pool on Base. This requires a standard like EIP-7007 or a cross-chain attestation layer.

The alternative is systemic fragility. Asset-specific reputation, like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH, creates concentrated points of failure. A depeg or slashing event on one chain cascades, destroying trust across the entire ecosystem.

Evidence: The EigenLayer restaking model demonstrates the demand for portable security, but it remains ETH-centric. The next evolution is a truly agnostic layer that treats ETH, SOL, and even real-world assets as interchangeable inputs to a global reputation graph.