This ERC defines a Trust Registry that enables agents to establish and query transitive trust relationships using ENS names as identifiers. Trust is expressed at four levels (Unknown, None, Marginal, Full) and propagates through signature chains following the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) web of trust model.
The registry serves as the trust and delegation module anticipated by ERC-8001, enabling coordinators to gate participation based on trust graph proximity. An agent is considered valid from a coordinator's perspective if sufficient trust paths exist between them.
This standard specifies trust attestation structures, the path verification algorithm, ENS integration semantics, and ERC-8001 coordination hooks.
Motivation
ERC-8001 defines minimal primitives for multi-party agent coordination but explicitly defers trust to modules:
"Privacy, thresholds, bonding, and cross-chain are left to modules."
And in Security Considerations:
"Equivocation: A participant can sign conflicting intents. Mitigate with module-level slashing or reputation."
This ERC provides that trust and delegation module. Before coordinating, agents need answers to:
"Should I include this agent in my coordination?" — Participant selection
"Can I trust this agent's judgment about other agents?" — Transitive trust
"How do I update trust based on coordination outcomes?" — Trust maintenance
Why Web of Trust?
The web of trust model, proven over 25+ years in GnuPG, solves the bootstrap problem: how do you establish trust with unknown agents without a centralised registrar?
GnuPG Concept
This Standard
Public key
ENS name
Key signing
Trust attestation
Owner trust levels
TrustLevel enum
Key validity
Agent validity for coordination
Certification path
Trust chain through agents
Why ENS?
ENS provides a battle-tested, finalized identity layer:
Stable identifiers that survive key rotation
Ownership semantics via owner() and isApprovedForAll()
Human readable names (alice.agents.eth not 0x742d...)
Subdomain delegation for protocol-issued agent identities
Using ENS avoids dependency on draft identity standards while remaining compatible with future standards through adapter patterns.
Deployment note: This standard requires access to an ENS registry. On Ethereum mainnet, use the canonical ENS deployment. On other networks, use network-specific ENS deployments or bridges. CCIP-Read is a client-side mechanism and cannot be used for on-chain validation.
Identity Continuity
ENS names are the identity. When an ENS name is transferred, the new owner inherits existing trust relationships where that name is the trustee. The new owner can manage trust where they are the trustor.
Implementations SHOULD use short expiries (RECOMMENDED: 90 days maximum) for high-stakes scopes to limit exposure from name transfers. Agents SHOULD monitor Transfer events on ENS names they trust and re-evaluate trust accordingly.
Specification
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
Overview
This ERC specifies:
Trust levels and their semantics
ENS-indexed trust attestation structures with scope as key
Implementations SHOULD expose the domain via EIP-5267.
Primary Types
struct TrustAttestation { bytes32 trustorNode; // ENS namehash of trustor bytes32 trusteeNode; // ENS namehash of trustee TrustLevel level; // Trust level assigned bytes32 scope; // Scope restriction; bytes32(0) = universal uint64 expiry; // Unix timestamp; 0 = no expiry uint64 nonce; // Per-trustor monotonic nonce} struct ValidationParams { uint8 maxPathLength; // Maximum trust chain depth (1-10) TrustLevel minEdgeTrust; // Minimum trust level required on each edge bytes32 scope; // Required scope; bytes32(0) = any bool enforceExpiry; // Check expiry on all chain elements bytes32[] requiredAnchors; // Path MUST traverse at least one anchor; empty = no requirement } struct TrustPath { bytes32[] nodes; // [validator, ...intermediaries..., target] }
Path length definition: Path length is the number of edges (trust relationships) in the path. A direct trust relationship has path length 1. A path [A, B, C] has length 2.
ENS is finalised EIP-137, battle-tested, and widely adopted. Creating a new identity system would:
Add dependency on draft standards
Fragment the identity ecosystem
Require new adoption efforts
ENS provides everything needed: stable identifiers, ownership semantics, and extensibility.
Why Scope as Storage Key?
A trustor may have different trust levels for the same trustee in different contexts. For example:
Trust bob.eth fully for DeFi coordination
Trust bob.eth marginally for gaming
Making scope part of the storage key (trustorNode, trusteeNode, scope) enables this naturally. Universal trust bytes32(0) serves as a fallback when scoped trust is not specified.
Why minEdgeTrust Instead of Marginal/Full Thresholds?
The marginalThreshold and fullThreshold parameters were designed for on-chain graph traversal with marginal accumulation logic. Since on-chain traversal is OPTIONAL (expensive, DoS-prone), and the core primitive is verifyPath, we need only specify the minimum trust level each edge must have.
This simplification:
Reduces parameter complexity
Makes path verification straightforward
Leaves accumulation semantics to OPTIONAL extensions
For use cases requiring marginal accumulation, the OPTIONAL validateAgent extension accepts threshold parameters.
Why Separate Signing Authority from Transaction Submission?
ENS approvals (isApprovedForAll) are designed for operators to manage names on behalf of owners. However, allowing approved operators to forge attestation signatures would break the cryptographic binding between attestations and ENS owners.
By restricting signing authority to the ENS owner (or EIP-1271 for contract owners) while allowing operators to submit transactions like revokeTrust, we preserve:
Cryptographic integrity of attestations
Operational flexibility for name management
Clear security boundaries
Why verifyPath Only (No On-Chain Search)?
On-chain graph traversal is expensive and creates DoS vectors:
Branching factor can explode with user-controlled adjacency lists
Gas costs are unpredictable
Attackers can bloat trustee lists
By requiring pre-computed paths, this standard:
Keeps on-chain verification O(path length)
Pushes search complexity to off-chain indexers where it belongs
Enables predictable gas costs
Implementations MAY add validateAgent and pathExists as OPTIONAL extensions, but these are not required for compliance.
Why Four Trust Levels?
The four-level model (Unknown, None, Marginal, Full) is proven by GnuPG's 25+ years of use. Finer granularity adds complexity without clear benefit; coarser granularity loses important distinctions.
With minEdgeTrust, applications can choose their security posture:
Sybil attacks are the primary threat to web of trust systems. Required anchors force trust paths to traverse established community nodes (DAOs, protocols, auditors), transforming Sybil resistance from application-layer advice into protocol-level enforcement.
Backwards Compatibility
This ERC introduces new functionality and does not modify existing standards.
ENS Compatibility: Uses standard ENS interfaces (owner, isApprovedForAll). Works with any ENS deployment. Does not rely on CCIP-Read or other off-chain mechanisms.
ERC-8001 Compatibility: Designed as a module. ERC-8001 coordinators can optionally integrate identity gates.
Wallet Compatibility: Uses EIP-712 signatures, compatible with all major wallets. Supports EIP-1271 for contract wallets and smart accounts.
An attacker can create many ENS names and establish mutual trust between them.
Protocol-level mitigations:
Required anchors: ValidationParams.requiredAnchors forces paths through established community nodes
Short path limits: maxPathLength: 2 requires close proximity to validators
High trust requirement: minEdgeTrust: Full rejects marginal trust paths
Application-level mitigations:
Weight trust by ENS name age or registration cost
Implement additional stake requirements
Monitor trust graphs for anomalous patterns off-chain
Trust Graph Manipulation
Attackers may attempt to position themselves in many trust paths.
Mitigations:
Monitor trust graphs for anomalous patterns off-chain
Use minEdgeTrust: Full for high-value coordination
Require multiple independent paths via OPTIONAL extensions
Key Compromise
If an ENS name's controller is compromised:
Mitigations:
Agents SHOULD monitor for unexpected trust changes via TrustSet events
Use short expiries (90 days maximum recommended for high-stakes)
ENS name owners can rotate controllers
Affected agents can issue TrustRevoked to quarantine compromised nodes
ENS Name Transfer
When an ENS name is transferred:
New owner inherits trust where they are the trustee
New owner can manage trust where they are the trustor
Old attestations signed by old owner remain valid until expiry
Mitigations:
Use short expiries for high-stakes trust
Monitor ENS Transfer events
Re-evaluate trust after transfers
Replay Protection
EIP-712 domain binding prevents cross-contract replay. Monotonic nonces prevent replay within the same contract. The chainId in the domain prevents cross-chain replay.
Stale Trust
Trust relationships may become stale if agents don't update them.
Mitigations:
Use enforceExpiry: true in validation parameters
Set reasonable expiry values on attestations (RECOMMENDED: 90 days maximum for high-stakes)
Monitor TrustSet event timestamps off-chain
Off-Chain Path Computation
This standard assumes off-chain indexers compute trust paths. Malicious indexers could: