Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to engage with my proposal! I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts and concerns. Constructive criticism is always welcome as it helps to refine and improve the idea. I’ll be staying alert and waiting for your detailed review. Thanks again for your involvement!
3 Likes
I’m thrilled to hear your support! It’s indeed our aim to address this issue and enhance the overall security and uniqueness in the crypto space. Your encouragement means a lot. Stay tuned for more updates as I continue to develop this idea.
3 Likes
Hello @alexkat and @Galxe Forum Members and Contributors.
This proposal has a good reason for consideration — addressing security loopholes, increasing fair participation, and hence, equitable rewarding system for REAL AND UNIQUE WEB3 PERSONAE
However, i belief the solution for this problem has ALREADY BEEN FOUND and is being implemented by various protocols Galxe included.
The overall, most important goal for the creation of the Galxe Passport was to address this issue and boost the web3 community spaces generally. Why then, should an already functional product, already highly and usefully interoperable with multichains, and having daily expansion, possessing a richer user-base accessibility and entry barrier removal be forgone for a lesser alternative!
@alexkat a Galxe Passport addresses unique ID verification issues, tracks real and unique citizens of web3 and removes to the bearest level exerxabated and increased level of multi account frauds and sybil attack points. Screening human bioID data points for identification related issues has a higher security protection with accuracy than targeting random digital devices parameters which (my friend as you know it), can be owned in multiple numbers by one UNIQUE ID (aka human).
That means, your proposal is attempting to reward UNIQUE DEVICE’S ADDRESSes, and NOT REAL PEOPLE IDs❗️ So long as you have multiple devices, you can create multiple device(IP) NFTs! Which means one man can owned as many account as he deems necessary!! Thats a serious fraud loophole, sybil penetration back door and huge impediment that will lead to dare and broadened DAO-targeting exploits with grievous consequences across the entire web3 space. We wont be solving the little existing problem my friend, but exponentially multiplying the spread of the problem for everyone!
I used the self-coined term — “device(IP) NFT” intentionally here to show emphases that this app is targeting IP addresses of users devices and more privacy data points that NO BODY wants that to happen. Web3 will become weaker security wise, exponentially CENTRALISED AND MONOPOLISED, CENSORED, CONTROLLED AND EXPLOITED by protocols, teams, developers, regulatory bodies and huge barriers will emerged as a result. The whole idea favours BAD ACTORS and encourages bad web3 culture!
For this app to function as described in your proposal, it will collate and assembled so many data from users secretly and knowingly such as contact info, IP address, device and app permissions, camera and motion sensors trackers, device NFC accesses, users browsers data history and hook points calls, exploits script privileges, device IME ID, and so much more! What exactly correlate these users sensitive data accesses to protocols with security and anti-sybil and fraud prevention?
If this app is developed and given serious focus as we know (or atleast, will like to belief Galxe ecosystem development is meant to be), then we will have many defi protocols having exposures to their protocols than ever before. I am affirmatively thinking no body wants to introduced this. This is against the very ethos of blockchain tech, crypto, defi, and web3 in general.
To wrap up my long review and kicker against this proposal, let me say that the Galxe Passport UserID verification in place is a perfect solution to this issue.
Limitations can be placed to restrict non-Galxe Passport Holders from certain core protocol specific accesses to give increased interest to the passport as more mebers will be motivated to verify and mint their unique Passport.
To further boost this, a system profile identification process like the Gitcoin Passport can be further integrated to increased the Galxe anti-sybil system. These 2 novel user ID systems — Galxe and Gitcoin Passports are ideal solutions and they fit perfectly with the open participation mantra of web3.
Other systems like the Manta¹ Network ZKP enabled zkPassports, the zkMe² SBT, MeID and PoP, the zkPass³, the C2E C-ID⁴ and Mind Network⁵ are all perfect solutions innexistence and helping to weedoff fraud and sybil attacks for web3 and thanks goodness that Galxe has already entered into a strategic pertnership with Manta Network to increased the Galxe Passport features and functionality starting the development of the zkGalxe Passport version.
There is no better way to develop and increased security for protocols, track real persons, reward acrive users fairly and promote unique participation in web3 spaces than by exploring these trustless anti-sybil paradigms!
Last but not least, identity, integrity, ecosytem historical antecedents of the developer(s) is crucial to boost and retain users confidence, trust and confidenec in these security protocols.
Ladies and gentlemen and Galxe forum contributors, more than ever before, this is the time to open our eyes and analyse every projects, ideation, pitching and their implementations to avoid amagedon in web3 as we know it.
I welcome and expect quality reviews, cooments and remarks from all members and indeed from you 
@alexkat (my good friend for your) to these detail analyses and issues as I have raised here.
7 Likes
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to analyze my proposal and provide such insightful feedback.
I absolutely agree with you that the Galxe Passport and other existing solutions like the Gitcoin Passport, Manta Network’s zkPassports, and others are doing a great job in addressing unique ID verification issues and discouraging multi-accounting. They are indeed powerful tools that are enhancing the security and fairness of the crypto space.
However, the proposal I put forward is not meant to replace these systems but to complement them. The unique device identification application and NFT minting system are designed to add an extra layer of security and functionality to the existing systems.
The aim is not to reward unique device addresses, but to create a unique digital asset (NFT) for each user that represents their unique interaction with a specific device. This NFT can be traded or sold, adding an extra layer of functionality and value to the user experience.
Regarding your concerns about privacy and data collection, I want to assure you that the application will only collect the necessary device parameters to generate a unique hash. No personal data or sensitive information will be collected or stored. The application will be open-source, allowing anyone to review and verify its code.
I understand your concerns about potential fraud loopholes and sybil attacks. However, the application is designed in such a way that it prevents a device that already has an associated NFT from being bound again. This means that even if a user owns multiple devices, they cannot create multiple NFTs for the same device.
I believe that by working together, we can refine and improve this proposal to address the concerns you’ve raised and create a system that enhances the security, fairness, and uniqueness of user interactions in the crypto space.
Once again, thank you for your feedback. I look forward to further discussions and collaborations.
5 Likes
You see that right there is the bone of the contention Sir — “UNIQUE DEVICE.” Unique device tracking is very different from unique ID verification. No one device can be verified twice and hence cannot owned more than 1 unique deviceID NFT. The conjunction reverse in the statement means, as many devices as possible, there is a unique deviceID NFT for such. It does not prohibit a UNIQUE USER from submitting multple devices as he/she wishes for verification!
No 2 devices (owned by the same person, sitting on your workspace table, inthe same geolocation) has the same IP address, IME ID, NFC digital markers, … and others! And since you’re not logging into the same web pages doing the same searches or tasks across all your devices, your browser history isnt possibly identical, no matter how similar certain platforms data points like goolge accounts, email profiles… might similarly be.
Again, whats the point of trading this deviceNFT if they’re meant to tracked your unique web3 identity and interactions? How can one possibly sell his/her Galxe Passport or Gitcoin Passport? Why on earth will I sell my former device to another user with my digital data histories retained in such device? It just makes no security sense. This will lead to identity duplication, fake profiles, imposter user credentials and access provileges, web3 abuse, manipulations, threats, metaverse bullying… and more.
Value proposition wise, the value of such NFTs will be diluted as multi account NFTs will be minted to sell for profit. Personally, i like my stupid less valuable personal data than the high and mighty rich personal data of SBF, CZ, Elon Musk or Zuckerberg! I just like me and prefer me anytime I dont know about you! 
Also, no matter whether the app is hosted on an open platform and developed with open source codes, it does not guaranteed the “how and where and for what” related questions as it concerns the last end protocols (like BinanceNFT marketplace, Opensea, Trust wallet, Galxe, etc) that will integrate the app to their system and platforms.
4 Likes
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your concerns and would like to clarify a few points.
The concept of a “unique device” in this context is indeed different from unique ID verification. The idea is to create a unique identifier for each device, not each user. This means that a user can indeed submit multiple devices for verification, each with its own unique NFT.
As for the sale of these NFTs, the primary scenario we envision is one where a device is being sold. In this case, selling the NFT along with the device makes sense. The new owner of the device would then own the NFT, effectively transferring the “digital identity” of the device. This would not lead to identity duplication or fake profiles, as the NFT is tied to the device, not the user.
Regarding your concerns about personal data, the application does not collect or store personal data. It only collects device-specific parameters to generate a unique hash. This hash, and by extension the NFT, does not contain any personal data.
Finally, the open-source nature of the application is meant to ensure transparency and allow for community input and oversight. The end protocols that integrate the app will have to adhere to the same principles.
I hope this clarifies the concept. I appreciate your feedback and welcome further discussion.
4 Likes
Thank you for your matured coversation Sir. Lets watch as to how the entire Galxe Forum receive this proposal. Its upto the DAO consideration. But I hope that every responder and contribution takes into account the risks and rewards that will emanate from the acceptance and/or rejection of this proposal.
My other reserved considerati9ns depends on whether or not the proposal is adopted first!
Weldone my friend
4 Likes
Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful perspective. I completely agree, it’s essential for the entire Galxe Forum and the DAO to weigh the potential risks and rewards of this proposal. I believe in the power of collective wisdom and I’m looking forward to seeing how the community responds. Regardless of the outcome, I’m confident that we’ll continue to innovate and find ways to enhance the security and uniqueness of our platform. Thanks again for your support and encouragement!
3 Likes
the most important question: will the application be 100% safe?
we follow further, I use up to 3 devices, it happens. and that they will all be tied to 1 wallet?
sometimes I use other wallets to check if the site is safe from these devices, will they tell me I’m a multiacker? I just wanted to check out the site the link took me to from the galxe site. I just wanted to secure my main wallet.
the proposal has not yet been finalized and requires very thorough discussion. we can’t do it all in a couple of days. I allow the outflow of bots and cartoons, this is acceptable. but how can it be seen that others who do not like the innovation will not leave. Suddenly, 70% or more active users will leave. who will be responsible for this?
5 Likes
Hi alexkat.
I like the idea of preventing multi-accounting and I am all for it. I can’t stand multi-accounts.
But the proposed approach confuses me and questions remains.
- it is not very clear to me what kind of security for the user is mentioned in the proposal
- installing separate software on the device is an extra opportunity to compromise this device, and not everyone will be ready to do this
- why should I sell these NFTs? What’s the point of this? even if I sell a formatted device (which is hard for me to imagine), why would a person also need this NFT, if necessary, he will be able to create it himself.
- how to be in a situation when in addition to phones, there are also common devices in the family, such as laptops and PCs, when any member of the family can work on each of them at different times? Let’s say my wife and I have a shared laptop, sometimes she works on it sometimes I do, but with your approach, now it’s not a shared laptop, but it will become personal, which is not convenient and not everyone can afford a laptop for each family member. I mean, for you, 2 people at one computer is already a sybil - well, such a thing. And there are also large, poor families of a family, when not 1-2 people apply for one device, but more.
- open source is not a panacea for bugs and loopholes, you should understand this, having so much experience in IT
I mean, I still see that this solution is aimed at making it more difficult to be in web3, and not just fighting with Sybils. As brownPinkWater already wrote above, there are already quite powerful (albeit not 100%) solutions in the fight against sybils that do not interfere and do not prevent the average person from being in web3. Projects just need to start using them. After all, how many projects use the same Galxe passport? … I think no more than 3% (((( …
Respect for the idea, but the implementation did not work for me, because in addition to fighting sybils in this implementation, I still see spokes in the wheels of ordinary users in web3, and this is not good.
Being in web 3 is not easy for many anyway, but you want a new complication (… won’t it turn out that with the introduction of such a system, 10% of the audience will remain and the rest will simply go to other sites? … and here it is not only about bots, believe me … just give competitors a reason.
I know that you consider me incompetent, but I ask you to read my opinion.
Thanks for your proposal, it will be interesting to watch its fate!
5 Likes
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and concerns.
The application is being designed with the utmost attention to security. It will be open-source, meaning its code will be available for anyone to review, which adds an extra layer of transparency and security. However, like any software, while we strive for 100% safety, we must always remain vigilant and proactive in addressing potential security issues.
Yes, you will be able to tie multiple devices to a single wallet. The idea is to create a unique NFT for each device, not each wallet. So, if you use three devices, each will have its unique NFT linked to your wallet.
The system is designed to discourage multi-accounting, not the use of multiple wallets by a single user for legitimate purposes. If you’re using different wallets to check the safety of sites, that wouldn’t classify you as a multi-accounter. The focus is on the uniqueness of the device, not the number of wallets.
Community Discussion: Absolutely agree. This proposal is just the beginning, and it requires thorough discussion and feedback from the community. The goal is to create a system that benefits all users and enhances the overall security and uniqueness of the platform.
Potential User Outflow: This is a valid concern. Any significant change carries the risk of unsettling some users. However, the aim here is to improve the platform’s security and fairness, which should ultimately benefit all genuine users. It’s crucial to communicate these changes effectively to the community, address concerns, and iterate on the proposal based on feedback.
I appreciate your engagement and look forward to further discussions as we refine this idea.
2 Likes
Hi there,
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I appreciate the time you took to read the proposal and share your concerns. Let me try to address them:
The security mentioned in the proposal refers to the uniqueness of each user’s interaction within the crypto space. By binding a unique NFT to each device, we can ensure that each account is associated with a unique user, thus preventing multi-accounting.
I understand your concern about installing additional software. However, the application will be open-source, allowing anyone to review and verify its safety. We’re also considering other ways to implement this idea that might not require software installation (portble version).
The idea of selling NFTs is to provide flexibility in the transfer of device ownership. If you sell your device, you can choose to sell the NFT with it. The new owner can then use the NFT to verify the device’s authenticity and history.
This is a valid point, and it’s something we’re still figuring out. One possible solution could be to allow multiple NFTs to be associated with a single device, each representing a different user. However, this would require further discussion and development.
You’re correct that open source is not a panacea for bugs and loopholes. However, it does provide transparency and allows the community to contribute to the development and improvement of the software.
The goal of this proposal is not to make it more difficult to be in Web3, but to enhance the security and uniqueness of each user’s interaction. I aware that there might be some initial challenges, but I believe that the long-term benefits outweigh these challenges.
I value your opinion and I’m grateful for your feedback. It’s through discussions like these that we can refine and improve our ideas. I’m looking forward to further discussions and improvements on this proposal.
4 Likes
I think we can agree because every innovation should be given a chance 
4 Likes
Absolutely, @JuLiaNo1! Innovation is the driving force behind progress in the crypto space. I’m glad to hear you’re open to new ideas. Your support means a lot! Let’s continue to explore and push boundaries together.
1 Like
goodgoodgoodgoodgood
3 Likes
I think the galxe passport is enough. there’s even a gitcoin passport, and also a manta zkpass. and a web browser extension (upcoming). sometimes complicated things will reduce enthusiasts and the community will become quiet. maybe this can be applied in a different project, not in galxe. but i appreciate your idea. Warm regards. 
3 Likes
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I fully agree that simplicity is the key to keeping the community engaged and active. However, the device identification app I propose is not intended to replace existing methods such as Galxe Passport, Gitcoin Passport, Manta zkpass, or the forthcoming web browser extension (browser/extension device identification is useless in this matter, as device data can be problems to replace for any browser). Instead, it is intended to complement these methods and provide an additional layer of security.
From my personal research on sibyl attacks, I have found that while passports are incredibly useful, they are not a complete multi-accounting solution. A unique device identification app can provide an additional layer of protection against these attacks by tying unique NFTs to each device, making it difficult for a single user to maintain multiple accounts.
2 Likes
I am actively in favor of funding the development of cross-platform user applications to automate device identification and NFT mining processes to prevent multiple accounts and increase the uniqueness and security of user interactions across the crypto space, and I look forward to further development
3 Likes
a unique approach, this one is good
4 Likes
Thank you for your support and enthusiasm! It’s encouraging to see such positive responses to this idea. The goal is indeed to enhance the uniqueness and security of user interactions across the crypto space, and your backing means a lot. Stay tuned for more updates as we progress with the development of this cross-platform application. Together, we can make a significant impact on the crypto ecosystem.
3 Likes