To provide a brief overview, soul-bound tokens are a form of token that can retain a record of a person’s life and actions. These tokens are used to digitally identify persons in a manner that is decentralized (academic, social, personal, etc.).
Individuals are able to represent not just themselves but also their unique traits and the communities in which they participate as they earn SBTs that serve as symbols of their connections, memberships, and qualifications.
Souls have the ability to cultivate reputations, reveal where they originated, enter financial markets without the need for collateral, and safeguard both their identities and reputations through individualization.
I’m intrigued by this question. If the purpose of blockchain technology is to address the problem of trust, does it make sense to design a token that encourages people to trust each other?
Additional investigation has turned up various uses for SBTs, such as a DAO voting replacement. Instead of the current governance model, which is dependent on how many tokens a member holds, DAOs might issue SBTs that assign voting power based on users’ interactions with the community. The most loyal users would have the most voting power under the SBT principle. Sybil’s attacks are one of the biggest problems with the way DAO governance is set up right now. DAO voting might be able to protect the integrity of DAO voting.
A preventive measure for the Sybil attack is the minimum nakamoto coefficient, which can be used to track a system’s degree of decentralization. The degree of decentralization in the system increases with the value of the minimal Nakamoto coefficient. The more decentralized a system is, the more resistant to attacks it will be. The main concept is to
-
Find out the fundamental components of a decentralized system
-
To determine how many compromised entities would be required to take control of each system,
-
To determine how effectively the system is decentralized, choose the least of these.
To take down a DAO, one or more malicious actors must seize control of the majority of the governance tokens. Voting can be rigged and the project can be directed in their favor by the individuals who have the majority of the votes. Because they are visible and checkable, SBTs could help identify and stop malicious players from entering the DAO. Corruption and Sybil assaults might be prevented by doing this.
As a result, we can see that SBTs are an idea that is to be welcomed. To what extent, though, does this suggest that one will have to start over to earn SBTs?
Because of the slow adoption of blockchain in some regions of the world and the lack of strong reputation infrastructure in other regions, don’t SBTs disadvantage those who find themselves in this situation?
Could SBTs in a system produce some level of inequity within a DAO? The presence of SBTs in a system has the potential to make a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) less equitable. If this is the case, then there is a possibility that totalitarianism will emerge from inside the system over time.
When it comes to the long-term viability of SBTs, there is a question about the effect that they will have on the right to be forgotten in certain applications of the technology. How can SBTs be revoked in a way that does not completely do away with the user’s right to be forgotten while using SBTs? This is especially important when it comes to records that have outlived their usefulness.