I have just read this paper - https://metavisa.com/lightpaper-2501.pdf - It made me come up with an idea that whether we can upgrade this function into our Pathway Protocol because we have some of the same factors such as POAP, voting parameters .v.v. anyway, it needs to be studied more before we got sth make sense.
Solid suggestion! I checked the paper about metavisa, but din’t understand how exactly scoring should works. I mean in classical scoring models we have delayed payments for the loans and mortages, but what exactly we can use for blockchain accounts scoring?
Or you are suggesting to use scored eth accounts as a feature for pathway like how many users with certain “reputation” onboarded into the GC products?
If so, it’s an amazing idea. There are many opportunities for such scoring: degenscore, dbank score and etc. Hope Metavisa will have it’s score as well.
I remember that Alex mentioned whitelisting for bonding users:
It’s a good idea, however this runs in parallel with Pathway since this is just a protocol for treasury management, but the peg is supposed to be based on some formula which is basically scoring the fundamentals & calculates the peg price accordingly.
If you think about it - the scoring/peg model is a module which can easily be replaced/upgraded. We should definitely use some metrics @bjames mentioned and in general anyone can use the code in their own products to create similar scoring models for their use. But I think the scoring should really be separate, Pathway need to use only the output of the scoring model and for this some sort of interface is required, so that scoring part is interchangeable & upgradable