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.”

3 Likes

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

{plugging this discussion here from the tg chat since is relevant for this thread}

Pat | DAOstack
This is an interesting situation as @point has volunteered to share his LinkedIn information privately, but not publicly.

So we have two options:

(1) deny the proposal as we have never had an anonymous application before; set a precedent in this respect

(2) have a few trusted parties “verify” him privately and proceed w/ the proposal

point
Happy to be a guinea pig as I would imagine this will probably be an issue of ongoing relavance as the dao movement spreads throughout the crypto space…

Pat | DAOstack
There has been no prior instances of this

Pat | DAOstack
Ah, speak of the devil

point
for the moment i can be zero knowledge proofed via Matan or Will at Ethfinex

— Monday, June 10, 2019 —

Pat | DAOstack
I would personally love a scalable automated solution a la BrightID integrated in this regard

Pat | DAOstack
Maybe this should be a DAOtalk discussion thread and we can pool opinions and discuss solutions

point
And what are you attempting to verify? That I exist? That I’m qualified to participate?

Pat | DAOstack
That you are a unique Reputation holder within the DAO; that there is not another address that is also you voting on proposals

point
I can certainly see how that would be a concern

Pat | DAOstack
But note it’s not a debate about you and your application, it’s a matter of setting a precedent that can honor this objective for future proposers

Pat | DAOstack
It’s also a matter of GenDAO figuring out what level of identification it feels is appropriate; every DAO is different and some will likely eschew ID; others may only allow IDed individuals

Pat | DAOstack
I can personally think of a lot of situations where people prefer anonymity — such as IDing themselves puts them in danger for instance — it’s worth diving into this I think

point
I concur

Pat | DAOstack
Knowing you’re comfortable as a guinea pig is definitely helpful :grin:

point
That’s part of the fun :wink:

1 Like

Hey everyone, here are some points discussed in our Identity verification debate in yesterday’s community call.
Unfortunately no good notes were taken so if you were in the debate and want to add something that I haven’t mentioned please do so.


If the DAO was crowded with spam proposals from fake profiles the holographic consensus would protect the DAO by design

Change the ask for reputation culture - if more meritocratic, more resilient against sybil attacks

2% rep cap - the quorum that decided this was very small. How to keep norms up to date?

How to value expertise with reputation? Interesting case for other reputation mechanisms.

What are other attack vectors in terms of identity?

2 Likes