Gitcoin Passport vs BrightID: Sybil Resistance for Grants & Governance

Aggregates Web2 & Web3 identity signals from 20+ providers (Google, ENS, POAP, Lens). This matters for scoring unique humanity with a weighted, verifiable credential (VC) system, enabling nuanced reputation.

Native integration with Gitcoin Grants and major protocols like Optimism, Arbitrum, and Base. This matters for grant administrators seeking a turnkey, widely-adopted solution with a proven track record in quadratic funding.

Relies on peer-to-peer verification parties to establish a unique social graph. This matters for privacy-focused applications where users must prove uniqueness without linking to centralized Web2 identities or on-chain activity.

No central authority controls verification. Nodes run by community members. This matters for governance systems prioritizing maximal decentralization and resistance to centralized identity provider takedowns.

No central authority for verification; relies on a decentralized network of peers. Verification is often free or very low cost for end-users. This matters for permissionless protocols and global communities where user-paid fees for verification stamps (like Passport) could be a barrier.

Relies on Web2 platforms (Google, Twitter) for core stamps, creating a dependency on their APIs and policies. Stamp fees (paid in $GTC or $ETH) can add up. This matters for projects seeking maximal decentralization or serving users in regions where these platforms are restricted.

Smaller active user base (~200K verified) compared to Passport, limiting network effects. The in-person/sponsored party model for verification adds friction for users. This matters for projects needing immediate, large-scale deployment where user onboarding ease is critical.

Composability of Web2 & Web3 Signals: Passport aggregates over 20 verifiable stamps from sources like ENS, POAP, and Twitter. This creates a non-binary Passport Score (e.g., 30+ points), allowing for nuanced, weighted sybil filtering. This matters for grant rounds where you need to filter out bots while avoiding false positives on new, legitimate users.

Deep Protocol Integration: Widely adopted by major ecosystems like Optimism Grants, ArbitDAO, and Base for on-chain voting and funding. The EAS (Ethereum Attestation Service) schema and Scorer API make integration a <100 line code task. This matters for CTOs who need a battle-tested, plug-and-play solution with minimal custom engineering.

Reliance on Gitcoin's Infrastructure: The scoring algorithm and stamp issuance rely on Gitcoin's centralized servers and API. While verifiable credentials are on-chain, the scoring logic is opaque and can be changed unilaterally. This matters for protocols requiring maximally decentralized, credibly neutral governance where no single entity controls identity gates.

Peer-to-Party Authentication: Uses social graph analysis via verified video-chat "Verification Parties," eliminating reliance on centralized validators or Web2 data. Achieving Verified or Sponsored status is a one-time, human-centric process. This matters for projects prioritizing censorship resistance and minimizing corporate data dependencies (e.g., DAOs in restrictive jurisdictions).

Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Anonymity: Users can generate context-specific ZK proofs (e.g., "I am a unique human") without revealing their social graph or connections. Integrations with Snapshot.org and Clr.fund use this for private voting. This matters for governance systems where voter coercion is a risk and participant privacy is paramount.

High Onboarding Barrier: Requires finding and attending a scheduled verification event, creating significant friction compared to signing a wallet message. The active user base is orders of magnitude smaller than Passport's. This matters for consumer-facing dApps or large-scale grant programs where maximizing legitimate participant conversion is critical.