The Future of Moderation Lies in Protocol Layers

Platforms like Twitter or Discord maintain private censorship lists, creating a single point of failure and control. This leads to arbitrary deplatforming and stifles innovation in filtering logic.

• No Auditability: Users cannot verify why content was removed.
• Vendor Lock-in: Rules are tied to the platform, not the user or community.
• High Latency: Enforcement is reactive and slow, often after damage is done.

Protocols like Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) and Verax enable on-chain, portable reputation. Moderation rules become verifiable smart contracts that any frontend can query and enforce.

• Composability: A 'bad actor' attestation on one app can be read by all others.
• User Sovereignty: Individuals can curate their own allow/block lists across interfaces.
• Market for Curation: Specialized oracles (e.g., UMA, Chainlink) can compete to provide reputation scores.

ZK-proofs (via zkSNARKs or zkSTARKs) allow users to prove they are not on a blocklist without revealing their identity. This enables privacy-preserving moderation at the protocol layer.

• Selective Disclosure: Prove you're a human (via Worldcoin) or meet criteria without doxxing.
• Scalable Verification: Proofs can be verified in ~10ms, enabling real-time checks.
• Regulatory Alignment: Enables KYC/AML checks at the wallet level without exposing personal data to every dApp.

The Problem: Apps are walled gardens with arbitrary, opaque rules. The Solution: Farcaster Frames are mini-apps that run directly in the client, with permissions and data flows defined by the protocol, not a platform's whims.

• Client-Side Execution: Moderation logic runs locally, removing a central arbiter.
• Composable Actions: Frames can be permissionlessly embedded, creating a marketplace for trust-minimized features.
• Data Portability: User graph and interactions are protocol-native, enabling permissionless client innovation.

The Problem: Reputation is ephemeral and locked to a single app. The Solution: Lens Protocol turns social actions into ownable, tradable NFTs (like mirrors and collects), creating a persistent, on-chain reputation layer.

• Staked Moderation: Communities can use staked tokens to signal trust, creating economic skin-in-the-game for curators.
• Algorithmic Choice: Users can subscribe to any open algorithm, breaking the monopoly of a single feed.
• Portable Graph: Your followers and content are assets you control, enabling true user sovereignty.

The Problem: Social data is siloed in corporate databases, enabling shadow banning and manipulation. The Solution: DeSo is a blockchain purpose-built to store social data (posts, likes, follows) on a public ledger, making all actions transparent and auditable.

• Transparent Moderation: Any takedown or ranking decision is visible on-chain, enabling public accountability.
• Permissionless Clients: Anyone can build a front-end that reads the canonical social graph, ensuring no single entity controls access.
• Native Monetization: Creator coins and social tokens are first-class protocol objects, not afterthoughts.

The Problem: Trusting a corporation's 'Community Guidelines' is naive and centralized. The Solution: Emerging protocols use zero-knowledge proofs and attestation networks like EAS (Ethereum Attestation Service) to create verifiable, portable reputation and moderation credentials.

• ZK-Reputation: Prove you're a human or trusted actor without revealing identity.
• Cross-Protocol Credentials: A ban or endorsement on one app can be a verifiable input for another.
• Credible Neutrality: Rules are enforced by code and cryptography, not a policy team's biases.

Protocols like Worldcoin or BrightID aim to anchor identity, but face a fundamental trade-off: decentralization vs. proof-of-personhood. Centralized oracles become single points of failure, while decentralized alternatives are gamed by low-cost collusion rings.\n- Sybil Attack Surface: A compromised oracle or a $50M bribe to an attestation provider invalidates the entire system.\n- Privacy Nightmare: Biometric or social graph data creates honeypots far more valuable than any wallet private key.

Moderation executed via intent-based systems (UniswapX, CowSwap) or sequencer-level filtering creates a new profit center for block builders. They can extract rent by auctioning the right to censor or front-run compliance actions.\n- Regulatory Capture: Builders like Flashbots or Jito become de facto regulators, prioritizing compliance for profit over network neutrality.\n- Opaque Blacklists: Censorship becomes a ~$100M+ MEV opportunity, hidden behind private order flows and sealed-bid auctions.

Divergent moderation rules across chains (Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos) and bridges (LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) Balkanize liquidity and user experience. A compliant asset on one chain becomes toxic on another, breaking cross-chain composability.\n- Bridge Risk: Bridges must enforce conflicting policies, becoming legal targets and technical bottlenecks.\n- Fragmented Liquidity: $10B+ in bridged assets could be stranded or frozen based on jurisdictional disputes between protocol governors.

Protocol-layer moderation concentrates immense power in governance tokens. This creates a high-value target for state-level actors and well-funded adversaries, turning DAOs into instruments of control.\n- Vote Market: A 51% token stake is cheaper and more effective than lobbying a traditional platform. Entities can buy sovereignty.\n- Code is Not Law: Upgradable contracts mean rules change on-chain, rendering any promise of neutrality moot post-capture.

Every dApp reinvents the wheel with custom, centralized blacklists, creating inconsistent user experiences and fragmented security. This model fails at web-scale.

• Fragmented Security: An address banned on Uniswap can still trade on Curve.
• Operational Overhead: Each team must manage their own threat intelligence feeds.
• User Hostility: No portable reputation; you're a stranger on every new app.

A neutral, programmable protocol layer for attestations (like Ethereum Attestation Service) and reputation scoring. Apps subscribe to filter rules instead of managing lists.

• Composability: A single "verified human" attestation works across Farcaster, Lens, and Aave.
• Specialized Enforcers: Leverage protocols like Chainalysis for sanctions or HyperOracle for real-time MEV detection.
• Developer Velocity: Integrate complex moderation logic with a few lines of code.

Users express intents ("swap X for Y") which are routed through solvers. The protocol layer can enforce rules pre-execution and slash bonds for violations, moving enforcement on-chain.

• Pre-Execution Checks: Solvers in UniswapX or CowSwap must validate against protocol-level blocklists.
• Cryptoeconomic Security: Malicious solvers on Across or LayerZero lose staked capital.
• Dynamic Policy: Communities can vote on and update filter parameters via governance.

This creates a new primitive: trust-as-a-service. Apps compete on UX and features, not on who has the best threat intel team. The network effect shifts to the protocol layer.

• Market for Trust: Specialized oracles (e.g., UMA) can provide dispute resolution as a service.
• Regulatory Clarity: A clear, auditable compliance layer simplifies OFAC adherence.
• Innovation Frontier: Enables hyper-scalable social graphs and decentralized ad markets.