EIP-11: Wallet Quality Score

Voting ended 4 months agoSucceeded

Abstract

This proposal introduces a new scoring component to the Ethos credibility system: a Wallet Quality Score. This element evaluates the connected wallets of each user and awards up to 45 additional points toward their Ethos score, rewarding users whose wallets demonstrate strong onchain credibility, longevity, and responsible activity. Conversely, users with only low-quality wallets can receive a penalty of up to -25 points.

The intent is to strengthen onchain trust signals, reduce Sybil manipulation, and reward real users with meaningful wallet histories.

Specification

Overview

The Wallet Quality Score evaluates all connected wallets associated with a user’s account. Each wallet receives an individual score based on measurable, onchain criteria. The score component will then be determined based on the quality of all connected wallets.

WalletQuality Criteria

Ethos does not intend to publish the specific criteria we are using to compute the wallet quality score. Since this is an inherently gameable metric, our focus is on encouraging users to connect their wallets, transact normally, and demonstrate genuine engagement over time.

Some examples of criteria we have considered, are considering, or intend to use are:

Metric	Description	Signal Type
Wallet Age	Block timestamp of first transaction; older wallets score higher.	Longevity
Transaction Count	Total number of valid onchain transactions.	Activity
Gas Fees Paid	Aggregate gas spent (ETH or Base ETH).	Skin in the Game
Counterparty Diversity	Number of unique counterparties and contracts interacted with.	Breadth
Reputation of Interactions	Engagement with reputable, verified, or governance contracts.	Quality
Low-Risk Behavior	Absence of scam interactions, flagged tokens, or blacklisted contracts.	Safety
Recency & Consistency	Steady use over time, not bursty or farmed activity.	Authenticity

We fully expect to iterate on these criteria over time, and to add or remove criteria as we find them to be effective in encouraging genuine, reputable engagement.

Score Component Adjustments

To allow for the wallet quality score we have decided to adjust the following score components:

Eth Address Age: We will remove this component entirely and incorporate it into the wallet quality score.
Review Impact: 540 -> 500

Off-Chain Vote

For

901 ETHOS98.3%

Against

12 ETHOS1.3%

Abstain

4 ETHOS0.4%

Download mobile app to vote

Discussion

EIP-11: Wallet Quality Score

Timeline

Oct 14, 2025Proposal created

Oct 14, 2025Proposal vote started

Oct 17, 2025Proposal vote ended

Oct 17, 2025Proposal updated

Abstract

The intent is to strengthen onchain trust signals, reduce Sybil manipulation, and reward real users with meaningful wallet histories.

Specification

Overview

WalletQuality Criteria

Some examples of criteria we have considered, are considering, or intend to use are:

Metric

Description

Signal Type

Wallet Age

Block timestamp of first transaction; older wallets score higher.

Longevity

Transaction Count

Total number of valid onchain transactions.

Activity

Gas Fees Paid

Aggregate gas spent (ETH or Base ETH).

Skin in the Game

Counterparty Diversity

Number of unique counterparties and contracts interacted with.

Breadth

Reputation of Interactions

Engagement with reputable, verified, or governance contracts.

Quality

Low-Risk Behavior

Absence of scam interactions, flagged tokens, or blacklisted contracts.

Safety

Recency & Consistency

Steady use over time, not bursty or farmed activity.

Authenticity

We fully expect to iterate on these criteria over time, and to add or remove criteria as we find them to be effective in encouraging genuine, reputable engagement.

Score Component Adjustments

To allow for the wallet quality score we have decided to adjust the following score components:

Eth Address Age: We will remove this component entirely and incorporate it into the wallet quality score.

Review Impact: 540 -> 500