What are DAOstack’s thoughts around identity verification protocols?


On December 31st, the community member Yalda Mousavinia (@stellarmagnet) asked what are DAOstack’s thoughts around identity verification protocols. A synthesis of the answer provided by DAOstack’s architect Matan Field is:

“Right now we are not at all focused on identity verification protocols; pretty much the opposite. The DAO protocols we’re focusing on are pretty agnostic to the identity of participating agents; their reputation is derived from actions they’re doing in the system, and the appreciation they gain from their environment.
One-to-one human-agent relationship is not needed in our platform (perhaps vice versa), although you could definitely add it on top as a plug in (if we won’t others will). Besides, we’ll definitely integrate with existing identity tools such as uPort.
One could integrate identity protocols right away. We’re also constantly improving the documentation to allow for such 3rd-party integrations easily possible. The more others contribute code / features / plugins the better.”


Both ways sound awesome, an agnostic approach and compatibility to other projects focused on the issue.
After all, the Sybil Attack Problem still has no definitive solution.


Both ways sound awesome, an agnostic approach and compatibility to other projects focused on the issue.
After all, the Sybil Attack Problem still has no definitive solution.

I think within communities that are working on decentralized software (blockchains, dapps, etc) you usually know who is a unique person based on who regularly shows up to community meetings and who has been contributing to the repo. So I think even a bare bones type identity protocol can be a consensus-based vote among “core” team members, that all projects will have. If you think about how almost all teams use github, there is always going to be a person who is the repository owner, and ones who assigns privileges to add team members to have the priv to merge pull requests. So we are going to have “gatekeepers” in this DAO world in the near-term. I think there will still be many decisions that are based on the “core” team just like there is with EIP, BIP.

It would be nice to innovate on these processes so it becomes transparent how one can get added to the organization on github, or any future git tool that’s used (like oscoin.io or any custom dapps built on top of daostack, etc)

So I think you can use a combination of git contributions + community meetings, and then a custom “proof of identity” proposal in DAOstack as a bare-bones method of validating unique people.


I just don’t know if we are fully ready to trust some anonymous agent to be given admin privs on a git repo :slight_smile:

So this is why I think identity solutions are super important in the DAO world. It’s not even about having private information disclosed… but knowing you are talking to unique people will be key. I think there are going to be decisions where one person one vote will still be important.

In Vitalik’s recent article “Notes on Blockchain Governance” he also mentions an important coordination flag being “User votes, through some kind of sybil-resistant polling system”. I agree with him that for different use cases, we will require different types of voting or signaling. Hence to really have a robust DAO ecosystem, I think an identity solution will be critical.


Exactly ::slight_smile:
I agree it’s important to go beyond id agnosticism. But it doesn’t matter how much we like or want a solution we’re not quite there yet. And even when it happens, it probably wont be an one-size-fits all.
That’s why I believe it’s wise to have an agnostic foundation, it’s simply more flexible and thus more scalable.