BrightID vs Proof of Humanity

Social graph verification without personal data: Uses peer-to-peer verification parties to establish uniqueness without storing KYC data. This matters for protocols prioritizing user privacy and censorship resistance, like Gitcoin Grants or Circles UBI.

Near-zero cost per verification and simple API/SDK integration (e.g., with Snapshot, POAP). This matters for projects with high-volume, low-fee use cases (e.g., airdrop protection, community voting) where user onboarding friction must be minimal.

Vulnerable to Sybil attacks in small groups: The social graph model can be gamed if a group coordinates to verify each other. This matters for high-value applications (e.g., direct treasury distributions) where the cost of attack may be worth the reward.

Video submission + third-party vouching creates a robust link to a legal identity. This matters for applications requiring high assurance of uniqueness and real-world accountability, such as quadratic funding rounds (like Gitcoin's main rounds) or decentralized courts (Kleros).

Costly and time-consuming to attack: The combination of video, deposit, and challenge period (via Kleros) raises the Sybil attack cost significantly. This matters for protocols where the integrity of the voter or participant list is paramount to system security.

Slow onboarding and upfront user cost: Requires video submission, a deposit (~$1 in UBI), and a waiting period. This matters for mass-market dApps where user experience and zero-cost entry are critical for adoption.

Privacy-first design: Uses social graph analysis without storing personal data. Verification occurs through private, in-person or video-call 'Verification Parties'. This matters for applications requiring Sybil resistance without KYC, like airdrops or quadratic funding on platforms like Gitcoin. The system scales through a decentralized network of community verifiers.

No monetary deposit required: Users verify for free, removing a significant barrier to entry. The process is designed for rapid, low-cost scaling of user bases. This matters for dApps needing to onboard thousands of users quickly without upfront cost, such as community governance platforms or social networks. Integration is via simple API calls or sponsored gasless transactions.

Relies on ongoing social activity: A user's 'unique' status can expire if they become inactive in their social graph, requiring re-verification. This matters for long-term identity persistence in systems like universal basic income (UBI) streams or permanent reputation systems. The model is less suited for one-time, permanent attestations.

Cryptoeconomic stake: Requires a ~$100 USD deposit in ETH and a video submission verified by the community via a challenge period. This creates a strong Sybil-resistance mechanism. This matters for high-stakes applications like decentralized courts (Kleros), token-curated registries, or any system where a verified identity has significant financial consequence.

One-time verification for a persistent identity: Once verified, a user's profile is a permanent, transferable Soulbound Token (ERC-20) on Ethereum. This matters for building lifelong, portable reputation across dApps, DAO membership, and sybil-resistant voting systems like Aragon. The record is immutable and publicly auditable.

High user onboarding cost: The monetary deposit and video submission process creates significant friction, limiting mass adoption speed. Gas fees on Ethereum L1 for registration and challenges add to the cost. This matters for protocols targeting global, permissionless access where users may not have $100+ in crypto or easy video recording capability.