Gitcoin Passport is the most effective sybil resistance protocol to protect your web3 community from bots and bad actors through Identity/Reputation system. Users can collect various unique identity attestations, called “stamps”, from web2 and web3 authenticators all in one place.
Gitcoin Passport has solved “Decentralized Identity Trilemma” :
Sybil resistance.
Maintaining self-sovereignty (creating and controlling an identity without the involvement of a centralized third party such as Exchanger)
Privacy preservation (acquiring and utilizing an identifier without revealing personal information in the process such as KYC document).
In the first phase, Starknet filter out sybil wallets.
In the second phase, Starknet can apply multiplier criterias such as number of bridge from L1-L2, number of transactions in different weeks/months, volume of transactions, number of multi-chain transaction, minimum token value hold, wallet age, snapshot voters, gitcoin donators, etc
Don’t try to reinvent the wheel, just work on making it better than anyone else.
Gitcoin passport can also be upgraded, even for sybils.
I mean real hunters can overtake this gitcoin scores.
I think still reasonable criteria should be about txns + stablecoins + smartcontract interactions + forum/discord conversations.
This is one of the proposals that I like, although in the end the final decision will be made by the StarkNet central team (because as long as there is no token distribution, there is no DAO, so they are the ones who will make the decision), I would like that at some point there would be an official discussion of the subject, but in the meantime it will only be informal discussions between us the community
Gitcoin Passport is based on Cost of Forgery which is a way to make it expensive for attackers to create fake identities. This is done by considering the resources, time and effort required to forge an identity compared to the cost of implementing defenses against such attacks. By making forgery more expensive, attackers are less likely to engage in fraudulent behavior, improving the system’s security.
Passport is a great idea. However I don’t think KYC is the better choice.
Why? Because KYC data is still can be bought through the dark net.
Instead, if we apply humannode which is human face characterization that is also great.
Anyway, to attract the great project staying here and keep developing, that’s what STRK needs to do.
Good people → good project → good players and lots of audiences will come.
Yes, I totally agree with, but as the practice shows to us, multi-accounts learning very fast…
Simple example is Cyber FanClub raffle, many of them are able to get Gitcoin passport very-very fast.
But anyway, we can find out the way to sieve the lurkers & hunters.
In my opinion, the better way to distinguish between bots and actual users is through campaigns (like those done by Braavos, Argent, Starknet ID, etc.). I agree about the starknet node`s receiving the most quantity of STRK tokens because they really help with descentralization.
Your idea is good. Using forum registrations to measure Starknet’s active users isn’t accurate, as only a few use the forum. I’ve used Starknet for 3 months but just registered here.
I wanted to support to idea of using gitcoin passport as a further possibility to eliminate sybill.
Furtermore, i think by combining activity of multiple networks creates a more overall authentic picture of the network activity of a user.
Another option could be engage to unlock mechanism where only 20-25% of tokens are unlocked initially for all users and rest are locked for 12-18 months depending on the number of tokens. These tokens could be unlocked faster by earning boosts (NFTs) which are maybe 8-10 transactions per month across min 3-4 projects. This way the protocol keep engaging users/even hunters for longer time.
Concerning point 3 the team seems to follow already which is a pity as I love testing projects with my 2 cents to see which is the best combination of speed, costs, safety and convenient operation and CANNOT afford like other millionaires to leave 100 of $ on several projects or even chains.
I love how starknet develops so far, but honestly its getting to costly too check all these “leave 30 bucks thtere and there and here” and buy this and that and these…
In addition, it should be considered that the main reason for the existence of L2 are cost reasons and savings opportunities, because the masses simply can no longer afford the insane fees of the ETH network. The average user will bypass the ETH network for that reason whenever he can.
…and will certainly withdraw funds again as one cannot rely on the stability of protocols in beta or sandbox environment.
I suggest tasks on sophisticated platforms with proofs of humanity and links to real life, special tasks and events that ensure the ones closely following the project get rewarded, granting NFTs could solve this.
Also in this highly competitive L2 environment i strongly recommend a community driven approach. Masses make the winner ecosystem (for the reasons mentioned at top) instead millionaires.
Thank you for this detailed article and for implementing important criteria for participant selection and Sybil detection. Your proposal includes many thought-provoking points, particularly point 2, which I wholeheartedly agree with. This point is indeed crucial and pivotal for filtering out undesirable activities.
However, regarding point 3, I would like to express my reasoned doubts. Demanding a photograph of the balance in dollars or the equivalent token balance as the primary criterion for token distribution might be overly stringent. Not all users have the financial capacity to work with large volumes, and we cannot judge people solely based on their financial status.
Nevertheless, I support your approach regarding point 2. Setting limits on the number of transactions on the Starknet network can indeed effectively filter out Sybil accounts and promote a more equitable token distribution among those genuinely active on the network.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to voice my opinion and participate in this discussion.
I appreciate your kind words and I completely agree with you on many points, especially point 2. It’s indeed an important and crucial aspect that can help filter out unwanted activities and ensure a more accurate distribution of tokens.
I’d like to suggest the idea of implementing a scoring system. You could consider the possibility of assigning points for each of the criteria you’ve outlined. For example, using the Starknet bridge could earn a certain number of points, and each transaction on Starknet could earn a different number of points. Another point allocation could be given to node operators on the Starknet devnet. Additionally, you could set a minimum number of points required to qualify.
I believe that a scoring system could provide a more flexible and equitable way of determining who receives tokens within the airdrop. It would allow for the consideration of not only activity but also other factors that indicate interest and contribution to the network’s development.
Thank you for your valuable insights and the opportunity to discuss this approach!
yes The Starknet network will help participants with a small bank to use the blockchain to the fullest, since often people simply do not have enough money to pay for gas in the main Ethereum network. And if you provide airdrops to those who make a lot of transactions on the main network, then you make the rich even richer, which, in my opinion, is completely wrong.
I think I’ve read this whole forum now – I see many good ideas, and many very bad ideas imho.
The very first post opens with some fairly good opening ideas.
I wasn’t here for the earliest parts, but those who were should probably get at least a bit of a bonus.
Bridge used should not matter, you bridged to stark is the imortant part.
$ requirement – don’t necessarily agree with this, like take Nano’s and xabpoecuroe01’s expereinces for example, similar to mine, basically spending all their eth on trx and nfts.
Trx count should definitely matter – unique months should also matter similar to how Arb did it. Volume as well but maybe not necessarily a requirement to qualify, maybe spending $10/15+ on gas enough, then like more volume & trx is a bonus or something & more unique months. I didn’t like how arb did their months, went from like 1 to 2 to 9 or something, should have been more in between imo. I DID like though as long as you bridged and had like 10+ trx and 2 or more unique months you got something. Not sure how participating wallets atm would work out though for stark right now if it was the same or if ppl would get super diluted if that would qualify like 2 milllion ppl vs 600k or whatever it was.
Any of the nft campaigns could be a good distinction and or booster, at least starting one of them as some were quite hard to complete. I was unable to do all of the Argent quests and missed a few even though I tried but I was able to do all the Braavos quests. Anyone with like at least ½ of a given quest’s nfts from a quest set maybe gets a little point boost/qualify, or alternatively maybe just give a couple points for each quest nft someone has individually, sets not needed would be a nice way to reward anyone who tried but maybe couldn’t get them all because they have real world jobs and lives. I did all of the Turkey Defi quests too but didn’t realize there was a short window to claim the nfts after doing the missions and I missed minting 3 of the 6 nfts and wasn’t able to mint the legendary. That Argent Briq mission was kinda brutal too, people who did it on like the 4th day had the 30 briq requirement still which was like about 10 bucks or more to do, that was a big one just by itself and took most of the eth I had left to do, then they lowered it to only 10 briq but that was still a decent cost, I doubt many sybils would have done that quest, stuff like this imho is a huge qualifier in my mind. You minted a 10 or 30 briq, you’re very very unlikely to be a sybil even if you since sold it on secondary for significantly less than what you paid for it. Similarly certain other quests were much harder to do than others or required more $, or like the 2nd braavos quest nft required your phone, no way people could have spoofed that in large numbers imo. Anyone with that Braavos week 2 nft, or the argent Briq quest nft & especially if they actually minted a 30 briq nft, I’d wager is incredibly unlikely to be a sybil. Were it up to me and I was crafting requirements I’d make those 2 auto at least min requirements fulfilled.
Side note: I didn’t realize that you could do the argent quests w/ the braavos wallet and vice versa so I actually made 1 of each, as did a lot of my friends from nft groups I was in when we were all bored and decided to do the Stark nft quests for argent & braavos. Allowing people to combine their argent & braavos together might be a cool idea too. I’ve been worried we might be labeled as sybil as we all made 1 of each and shared eth initially to avoid bridging costs. Bad idea in retrospect but we had no idea at the time. Anyway allowing combining the 2 could be a cool idea for folks that didn’t realize and tried to do both quests on each respective wallet. (This #5 point probably could have been 3 separate points I guess haha, but all kinda inter related to costs and the quests nfts etc I guess also)
In the ideas above, some people don’t have a ton of $ to toss $50/100/1000 bucks in, but what if they still had like 25+ trx over the course of months and participated in quests and such? That person should definitely still be counted imo, to exclude them would potentially exclude a large portion of the community that has recently joined. Obviously you don’t want to super dilute either though so that everyone gets pocket change, having at least 1 of any quest nft could be a great distinction, and maybe the quantum leap one once they are able to resume it, will have to be paying attention to get that one.
Registered starkent forum users: Come on now, I didn’t even know this forum existed until today, bit of an extreme imho and would require linking discord to wallet, which is actually fine but I don’t think being a forum user should really benefit, not many know about it I’d wager. And not every defi user automatically has a discord & twitter either.
Gitcoin – I see so many ppl talking about this for pretty much every project now like it’s some kind of panacea, but I very strongly dislike this trend. The trend keeps moving toward kyc to do literally anything or gain any benefit, this is WRONG and completely against the spirit of defi!
Not only that but there are a plethora of other reasons I very much dislike the trend of gitcoin, for one they move harder and harder into kyc being the primary source of points. My main wallet is over 2 years old and I have transactions on it for 15eth in a single buy buying nfts and such (these did not age well unfortunately… so rekt), hundreds of trx on eth, hundreds of trx on other chains such as BSC and FTM, and lots more on like 12 other chains. This alone should be enough. No sybil is going to have 100s of trx on eth. NONE. Nobody would pay that much. Just having 3+ trx on like 3 or 4 chains ought to be plenty really, again most sybils create wallets specifically for a single project/chain to my knowledge (I could be wrong and admit I don’t know a great deal about how they operate really). But I really honestly doubt that many botters have trx on linea, zk, bsc, avax, ftm, eth, etc. (Also what are we doing linking a metamask/etc to the starknet wallet? I assume that would have to be the case). Anyway, Arbitrum didn’t need any extra BS gitcoin to filter out sybils. You don’t need to do anything other than on chain. If you are GOING to, I think gitcoin being at the tip of everyone’s tongues is very dangerous to defi’s future, and also serves gitcoin more than anything else. They sell their token, they shill all their services, hell all you have to do is have literally anyone do all the 6 or 7 or whatever different kyc things on there and poof you’ve got a stellar score while someone like myself with trx across a bunch of diff chains over years struggles to get even 20 without doxxing myself. So the idea that using your wallet a lot qualifies you on gitcoin is a joke, it doesn’t. Only if you contributed to their grant rounds or have a hundred commits on github are the only other significant source of points aside from linking socials, or kyc. Hell without linking all of my socials I still wouldn’t have been able to even hit 20 with this multi year old wallet that has spent heaps of eth, has tons of nfts on multiple chains and tons of trxs on a bunch of diff chains! It’s a joke and worse its harmful. Its awful, and all the serious people in defi dislike it. All the top people in the earnfi discord for example are strongly anti sbyil (a bannable offense if you talk about how to sybil in there) and condemn it because it harms defi and projects while simultaneously disliking gitcoin for the same reasons and it makes total sense. All they are doing is pushing kyc more and more and more while also pushing their own project interests. When everything in defi requires kyc you know what we have? The exact same centralized fully controlled system we already had, only much worse… On chain is all you need. You particiapted in the protocol? Cool. Prove it on the blockchain, not by having someone in another country that has zero care about the long term values of defi do 6x kyc on gitcoin for you that you can buy and have your high score for $5. There are many other very intelligent reasons to stop trending in this direction that I’ve seen others talk about as well. Gitcoin has already been proven to not prevent sybil, and its precisely because of the focus on kyc and their own project that makes it so easy for people to buy accounts to get around it for much cheaper than even 2x eth trx. Anyone that has even 2x eth trx is already less sybil than gitcoin can be. I’m sure there are LOTs of people that have legitimate wallets with zero eth trx though. Had I started in crypto this year I likely wouldn’t have a single eth trx, I’d be all arb/opti unless there was an nft on eth I wanted I guess.
I think this is very true, early adopters make a huge contribution to improve the protocol, even with just the feedback, but I don’t know if we would have to have to determine a level to participation
I think forum activity and roles are a great way to weed out Sybil and be fair to the community. But at the same time, I think that if the drop is distributed only to people who are active on the forum, it will be a very small number of people compared to what the developers would like. Therefore, the most logical solution is to make forum roles a drop multiplier.
I agree with most of them, but there should be no distinction between official bridges and third-party bridges. They are both important parts of starknet, and it is unreasonable to treat them differently. I don’t quite agree with your fifth opinion either.
The Starknet network will help participants with a small bank to use the blockchain to the fullest, since often people simply do not have enough money to pay for gas in the main Ethereum network. And if you provide airdrops to those who make a lot of transactions on the main network, then you make the rich even richer, which, in my opinion, is completely wrong.