Gitcoin Passport vs BrightID: Proof-of-Personhood & Sybil Resistance

Gitcoin Passport excels at providing a composable, user-friendly proof-of-personhood by aggregating verifiable credentials from multiple Web2 and Web3 sources. Its strength lies in its stamp system, which allows users to incrementally build a trust score from platforms like Google, Discord, and ENS. This approach has been battle-tested in over 50 rounds of Gitcoin Grants, verifying millions of unique contributions and distributing over $50M in funding with significantly reduced Sybil attacks.

BrightID takes a fundamentally different approach by relying on a social graph verification model where users prove their uniqueness through verified connections in live video sessions. This results in a more stringent, binary verification (you are either verified or not) that is highly resistant to automated attacks but creates a higher user onboarding friction and relies on a more centralized set of trusted community verifiers.

The key trade-off: If your priority is scalable, low-friction user onboarding and a graduated trust score for applications like airdrops or quadratic funding, choose Gitcoin Passport. If you prioritize maximum Sybil resistance for high-value actions (e.g., governance voting, UBI distribution) and can accept a more involved verification process, choose BrightID.

Gitcoin Passport excels at scalable, composable identity aggregation because it leverages a stamp-based system that integrates with dozens of existing Web2 and Web3 verifiers (e.g., Google, ENS, Coinbase, Lens Protocol). For example, a Passport can be built with over 20 stamps, creating a robust, portable reputation score. This approach has been battle-tested in over 20 rounds of Gitcoin Grants, where it processed millions of contributions and filtered billions in potential Sybil attacks, demonstrating its effectiveness at scale for grant allocation and airdrop protection.

BrightID takes a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing decentralization and privacy through social graph verification. This results in a stronger Sybil-resistance guarantee but at the cost of user acquisition friction. Users must participate in verified video-chat "verification parties" to establish their unique node in the social graph. While this creates a high barrier to fake identities, it limits the protocol's current scale; BrightID has verified approximately ~70,000 unique users, a fraction of Gitcoin Passport's reach, making it more suited for applications where extreme Sybil resistance outweighs mass onboarding needs.

The key architectural trade-off is between scalable, modular aggregation (Passport) and decentralized, graph-based uniqueness (BrightID). If your priority is integrating with existing user bases, leveraging on-chain data, and enabling low-friction onboarding for applications like grants, governance, or gated content, choose Gitcoin Passport. If you prioritize maximizing Sybil-resistance guarantees for a smaller, high-stakes community (e.g., a UBI system, a core governance council, or a privacy-critical application) and are willing to manage a more involved verification process, choose BrightID.