Committee member are going through KYC and I was thinking it would be great if we get a SBT from OP Foundation to prove that our address is KYCed. Well idea is to build on-chain identity, one address one soul, and this might be a start.
I created this badge because you can mint it on a new address and still hold the “verified” tag, its free and fun. Only drawback is that sample size is quite small, just 18 delegates between 4 committees. So if you are part of any committee, you can mint a zk badge on Simso platform.
While I like the concept (since people can “display” this badges on OS/whatever) I like it more wen the eligibility criteria is broader for privacy reasons (unless people don’t care about that, after all the eligibility list exposes the origin).
From an identity perspective the best so far is Gitcoin Passport. Aggregating credentials can be great if privacy is preserved and if there’s regular validations and updates (adding more credentials and so on).
Even if a wallet is connected to KYCed user ? What other criteria could be included here ?
Gitcoin passport is definitely making some move in right direction to build a digital identity in more decentralized way by connecting different pieces together.
But either by KYC based SBTs or gitcoin approach your wallet is exposed to public, they all need a zk based layer.
Take an example of Binance SBTs, once you authenticate on their platform, you get a SBT which proves that your address is verified. Binance or any app could possibly block your address by checking this SBT by its ID or with some meta-data,but here sample size is insane, in millions, and then if you build a zk base layer on top their SBT(similar to SISMO badge), you can still prove that you are a verified user by Binance and it will be impossible for anyone to target an individual user.
Both approach has some drawback, Gitcoin approach is good from regulation side and nightmare from user privacy side.
Thing is, if it’s a small sample (18 addresses as eligible criteria to claim) it doesn’t matter if you claim the badge using a different address. You somehow connect this destination with the origin (it’s a 1:18 relation - assuming everyone claims without using their origin, if there’s 10 claims using the origin then it becomes a 1:8 relation). If the eligibility criteria is broad enough (let’s say 10k wallets) you kind of preserve your privacy (assuming the claim is done using a different destination).
Meanwhile from an Identity perspective, it’s not a great idea to only use Soulbound NFTs because accounts can be compromised or lost. That’s my point, I see badges more like achievements and less like an identity tool (they shouldn’t be the only/main way but they can complement an identity).
If you want to understand a bit more how Gitcoin Passport works, you should check this and this.
It’s a nice and refreshing idea, apart from the privacy issue, I’m sure committee members appreciate the gesture.
The identity issue is essential to prevent Sybil’s attacks. And privacy is essential too for many people. Now that I’m performing a new DAO experiment I am exploring new ways of preventing Sybil attacks without compromising the privacy of new members and I hope we all can learn about it.
I like Community participation (linked to social accounts) as a fair enough approach in order to prevent a massive Sybil attack (I’ll check if the gitcoin passport goes in that direction). I like Vitalik’s idea of a new Id NFT standard that can be recovered by the community if your private key is lost or compromised (but not easy). I think at the end several secured sources may be used.