← Back to Home
Ethos
Serpin Taxt's review for Ethos
Score: 2232
NEUTRAL

"EIP-3: Sequential Review Eligibility"

Vote at [To be filled] #EIP-3: Sequential Review Eligibility This EIP proposes an update to the review impact calculation by introducing a sequential, daily eligibility mechanism for reviews. The core principle is that an author's reviews become active and contribute to scoring one at a time, on a per-calendar-day basis, following the sequence of their creation. This measure aims to prevent an excessive number of reviews from a single author from disproportionately and immediately influencing a population's reputation score, promoting a more metered and organic impact of one's public opinions. If an author writes many reviews within a short period of time, their impact on any given subject (and the overall system) is spread out, making the reputation system more resilient to bursts of activity and encouraging sustained, thoughtful engagement. We do not discourage authors from leaving 100s of reviews at once; it may even be an efficient use of their time to frontload their reviews. Reviews will continue to show on the profile page of the review subject. However, the score impact of those reviews will cascade to avoid surges and manipulation. ##Motivation There are now individuals who are selling Ethos reviews in order to boost the recipient's score quickly. That is not forbidden, but it does introduce perverse incentives. This change makes such manipulation more costly by limiting the ability of the seller to spam score-influencing reviews. This enforces the notion of economic security; we cannot eliminate the ability to buy one's reputation, but if it has a high cost, then it still acts as a valuable signal. Furthermore: having purchased reviews from a known seller will be permanently recorded on the blockchain, even should those reviews be later archived. There are communities which are now "gaming" the Ethos scoring system by leaving a massive number of reviews within days of joining. While we encourage people to review their friends and communities, this should not allow a single community to immediately attain reputable status. ##Specification The EIP-3 eligibility algorithm introduces the following rules for reviews when calculating their impact on a subject's score: 1. Chronological Ordering: For each review author, all their reviews are collected and sorted chronologically by their creation timestamp (createdAt). 2. Eligibility Date Calculation: 1. For each review by the same author: 1. If there is a not NextAvailableReviewDay , or the NextAvailableReviewDay is in the past, the NextAvailableReviewDay is set to today. 2. The review becomes active on the NextAvailableReviewDay . 3. The NextAvailableReviewDay increases by one. 3. Active Review for Scoring: A review is considered "active" and included in the score impact calculation for a subject once the review passes the associated AvailableReviewDay ## Rationale * Rate Limiting: This mechanism naturally rate-limits the impact of an individual author's reviews, ensuring a more gradual influence. * Determinism: The algorithm is deterministic, making score calculations predictable. * Synergy with EIP-1: This proposal works in conjunction with EIP-1's review quality measures. While EIP-1 focuses on the quality and sentiment of individual reviews, EIP-3 focuses on the timing and velocity of their impact. ## Considerations Although we will conduct a vote for implementing this EIP, the discussion will also determine if we apply any of the following considerations, or new suggestions not yet considered. * This algorithm could be modified to introduce exponential or multiplicative backoff. For example, the NextAvailableReviewDay could multiply by 1.5x for each review, instead of increasing linearly. It could also follow a bonding curve, increasing at a predetermined non-linear rate. * We could modify the number of reviews per day locally; 2 reviews per day, or globally; 1 review per Ethos user per day. * We could allow authors to archive existing reviews, allowing later reviews to apply earlier, essentially reducing the queue. ## Example Scenarios * Scenario 1: Author A writes 50 reviews for various subjects on Day 1. * Outcome: Their first review (chronologically) becomes active Day 1, the second Day 2, ..., the 50th on Day 50. * Scenario 2: Author B writes Review 1 (R1) on Day 1. They then write Reviews 2, 3, and 4 (R2, R3, R4) on Day 15. * Outcome: * R1 is eligible on Day 1. * R2 (created Day 15): is eligible on Day 15. * R3 (created Day 15): is eligible on Day 16. * R4 (created Day 15): is eligible on Day 17. ## Backwards Compatibility All applicable weighting from previous EIPs and review impact algorithms will continue to apply: 1. From all "active" reviews a specific author has written for a particular subject, only the latest active review is considered for score impact calculation. 2. The weighting of this latest active review (based on author score, subject score, ELO, and vote sentiment modifiers as established in EIP-1) remains consistent with previous versions. ## Security Considerations This change is designed to improve the robustness of the reputation system against manipulation by high-velocity review submissions. By metering the impact, it makes it harder for any single author to cause rapid, unmerited swings in reputation scores. No new direct smart contract vulnerabilities are introduced, as this is an off-chain calculation logic update.

527 upvotes
May 22, 2025

Comments

Meta
Meta
1344
May 22, 2025
That was addressed very quickly. All in favor!
BiggbossForeig
BiggbossForeig
1372
May 22, 2025
EIP-3: A Transformative Step Toward Fairer, More Resilient Review Systems In an era where digital reputation plays a critical role in determining trust and credibility, the accuracy and fairness of scoring systems have never been more important. Whether it’s assessing content quality, evaluating products, or building professional credibility, user-generated reviews have become foundational. However, as these systems grow, they also become vulnerable to manipulation and disproportionate influence. This is where EIP-3: Sequential Review Eligibility presents a timely and elegant solution. The Problem: Review Flooding and Score Manipulation One of the most pressing issues in any reputation-based system is the ability of individuals or coordinated groups to flood the system with a high volume of reviews in a very short period. This behavior can skew scores, undermine organic feedback, and distort public perception. It allows for reputation inflation and introduces perverse incentives—particularly in environments where reviews can be purchased or strategically timed for maximum impact. Such practices don’t just harm the integrity of the system—they actively discourage authentic participation and erode user trust. The Solution: EIP-3’s Sequential Review Impact Mechanism EIP-3 introduces a daily eligibility mechanism for scoring reviews. Instead of allowing all reviews from a single author to immediately contribute to a subject’s score, the proposal enforces a rule where only one review per author per calendar day becomes “active” in terms of score impact. These reviews are queued based on their creation time and activated one-by-one in sequence. This simple yet powerful approach accomplishes several important goals: Rate-limiting influence: Prevents an individual from disproportionately influencing a subject’s score in a short time. Encouraging sustained participation: Rewards long-term engagement over burst activity. Enhancing resilience: Protects the system from manipulation and review spamming. Maintaining data integrity: Even if reviews are purchased or orchestrated, their score impact is delayed and limited, reducing their effectiveness as manipulation tools. Economic Signaling and Ethical Design EIP-3 enforces the principle of economic security in reputation: it shouldn’t be easy or cheap to buy influence. If reputation can be “purchased,” it must come at a high cost in time and effort. This aligns perfectly with the broader goals of decentralized trust systems and blockchain-backed transparency—where reputation should be earned, not gamed. Furthermore, because reviews are permanently recorded on-chain, any history of manipulative behavior remains visible—even if its scoring impact is minimized. Technical Elegance: Predictable and Deterministic The algorithm behind EIP-3 is both deterministic and predictable, which adds to its robustness. By following a strict chronological activation model and incrementally adjusting the eligibility date, the system remains transparent and auditable. It also integrates seamlessly with EIP-1, which focuses on the quality and sentiment of reviews. Together, these proposals create a layered, multidimensional reputation framework—balancing quality with timing, and sentiment with frequency. Scalability and Flexibility EIP-3 is designed with future growth in mind. Its structure allows for potential enhancements, such as: Exponential or non-linear backoff curves to further discourage mass submissions. Dynamic activation thresholds for different user tiers or trust levels. Adaptive score weightings based on historical behavior. This flexibility ensures the proposal remains relevant as ecosystems evolve and user behaviors change. Conclusion: A Step Forward for Digital Trust EIP-3 is more than a technical improvement—it’s a philosophical shift. It prioritizes organic influence over instant impact, fairness over speed, and long-term trust over short-term gain. By introducing time-based eligibility into the review impact model, EIP-3 builds a foundation for healthier, more authentic digital communities.
crashout
crashout
1458
May 22, 2025
absolutely
Zaksans 🦉
Zaksans 🦉
1438
May 22, 2025
Voted yay 😊😊
Cristian P.
Cristian P.
2045
May 22, 2025
Awesome stuff, I just hope it doesn’t nuke us again. Although being here early, I’m kinda immune. I have only three questions: Should the delay between reviews grow non-linearly (smth like exponential backoff)? Should review limits vary by context (like 2 per day vs. 1 globally)? Should we be allowed to archive old reviews to reshuffle eligibility?
Kim
Kim
1770
May 22, 2025
It is time to formulate this rule, which stipulates that a few comments should be included in the XP points reward every day, and the rest should be cancelled and not accumulated. If the second comment does not participate, there will be no XP reward. This should be more reasonable and help users stay active every day.
Jampzey
Jampzey
2266
May 22, 2025
yes from me
Punkcan
Punkcan
1617
May 22, 2025
Voted
trendclub.eth
trendclub.eth
1230
May 22, 2025
why
LEE
LEE
1387
May 22, 2025
Probably review impact calculation will be changed more in the future until right formula is found, but the most important thing is to try to improve the product. Maybe introduce lockup on small amount of eth to be able to write Reviews and also somehow encourage giving negative Reviews. Also think that on-chain data should have ,bigger role on reputation
Page 1 of 6