Overview
AttestProtocol enables verifiable trust across diverse industries and use cases. This guide demonstrates practical applications with implementation patterns, showing how attestations solve real business problems through programmable trust infrastructure.Identity & Compliance
KYC/AML Verification
DeFi protocols face an impossible choice between regulatory compliance and user privacy. Every protocol must either build expensive identity verification systems or risk regulatory action, while users endure repetitive KYC processes that create friction and expose sensitive data across multiple platforms.- Protocols build expensive verification systems independently
- Users repeat KYC processes for every platform
- Smaller protocols get locked out of regulated products
- Platforms become honeypots for sensitive personal data
- Manual verification processes create friction and abandonment
- Specialized KYC providers verify users once
- Protocols verify eligibility instantly without handling PII
- Users access multiple protocols with single verification
- Liability transfers to licensed verification specialists
- Privacy preserved while maintaining compliance
- DeFi protocols avoid handling PII directly
- Users complete KYC once, access multiple protocols
- Regulatory compliance through verified third parties
- Real-time verification without manual review
Age & Geographic Restrictions
Platforms need to verify ages for legal compliance, but collecting birthdates creates massive regulatory obligations under GDPR, COPPA, and other privacy laws. Each jurisdiction has different age requirements while current verification methods either fail security or create user abandonment.- Self-reported ages are easily faked and legally insufficient
- Government ID uploads create privacy concerns and cart abandonment
- Every platform rebuilds age verification from scratch
- Multiple jurisdiction requirements complicate compliance
- Many platforms exclude entire geographic markets to avoid complexity
- Age verification services check IDs once and issue age threshold attestations
- Platforms verify “over 18/21” status without seeing birthdates
- Different age thresholds supported (13+, 18+, 21+) per requirement
- Compliance obligations stay with licensed verification providers
- Geographic restrictions enforced without storing location data
Proof of Humanity & Sybil Resistance
Decentralized governance fails when single actors create multiple identities to manipulate voting outcomes. Current systems either enable Sybil attacks through unlimited wallet creation or devolve into plutocracy through token-weighted voting.- Anyone can create unlimited wallet addresses to vote multiple times
- Token-weighted voting gives whales disproportionate power
- Bot farms generate thousands of fake governance participants
- Identity verification requires exposing personal information
- Centralized identity providers create single points of failure
- Humanity verification services use biometric and behavioral analysis
- Each participant gets one unique human attestation across all systems
- Zero-knowledge proofs preserve privacy while proving uniqueness
- Multiple competing providers prevent centralization
- Economic and technical barriers make fake identity creation unfeasible
DAOs & Governance
Contribution-Based Voting Weight
DAO governance becomes plutocracy when voting power comes solely from token holdings. Active contributors watch their proposals fail while inactive whales make technical decisions they don’t understand, driving talent away and degrading decision quality.- Early token buyers control all decisions regardless of contribution
- Developers and community builders lack governance influence
- Inactive whales vote on technical proposals they don’t understand
- Manual contribution tracking doesn’t scale and creates centralization
- Talented contributors leave for projects that value their work
- Verified code commits, events organized, and content created earn voting weight
- Active contributors gain governance influence matching their value creation
- Technical decisions get made by people who understand the codebase
- Contribution history becomes portable across DAOs and platforms
- Gaming requires actual work rather than just buying tokens
Reputation Scoring
Assessing member trustworthiness requires aggregating performance signals across multiple dimensions, but reputation remains trapped within individual platforms, preventing comprehensive evaluation of expertise and reliability.- Reputation scores reset when switching platforms or communities
- Valuable contribution history gets lost between systems
- No way to verify claimed expertise or past performance
- Manual reference checking doesn’t scale for DAOs
- Bad actors exploit lack of portable reputation
- Multi-source reputation aggregates peer endorsements and project outcomes
- Members carry verified reputation across all platforms
- Technical skills, reliability, and leadership tracked separately
- Automated reputation checks replace manual verification
- Historical performance data enables informed trust decisions
Gaming & NFTs
Event Attendance Verification
Exclusive events create value through scarcity, but proving attendance after the fact remains impossible to verify or monetize. Legitimate attendees miss ongoing benefits while fraudulent claims dilute participation value.- No verifiable proof of attendance after events end
- Anyone can falsely claim attendance at exclusive events
- Attendance records trapped in proprietary ticketing systems
- Event organizers can’t reward attendees retroactively
- Manual attendance verification doesn’t scale for benefits
- Event check-in triggers cryptographic attendance attestations
- Permanent, verifiable proof enables ongoing exclusive access
- Cross-platform attendance records unlock benefits everywhere
- Smart contracts automatically reward verified attendees
- Network effects increase value as more platforms recognize attendance
Cross-Game Reputation
Gamers invest thousands of hours building skills and reputation that vanish when switching games. This fragmentation wastes expertise and prevents efficient skill-based matchmaking across gaming ecosystems.- Achievements and reputation trapped within individual games
- Skilled players start from zero in every new game
- Competitive teams can’t verify cross-game player capabilities
- Gaming expertise provides no benefit in new communities
- Platform lock-in from fear of losing accumulated status
- Universal gaming reputation follows players across all platforms
- Verified skill levels enable appropriate matchmaking in new games
- Competitive teams assess player capabilities before recruitment
- Past achievements unlock exclusive content everywhere
- Gaming identity becomes portable digital asset
DeFi & Finance
Accredited Investor Verification
Securities laws require accreditation verification for many DeFi products, but implementing compliant systems creates massive overhead. Each protocol faces the choice between excluding retail investors or risking regulatory penalties.- Every protocol builds separate accreditation verification systems
- Storing financial documents creates legal and security liability
- Investors repeat accreditation for each DeFi platform
- Smaller protocols can’t afford compliance infrastructure
- Geographic variations complicate multi-jurisdiction offerings
- Licensed institutions issue portable accreditation attestations
- Protocols verify status instantly without handling financial data
- One accreditation process works across all DeFi platforms
- Liability stays with specialized, insured verification providers
- Smaller protocols access compliant investor verification
Credit Scoring for Lending
DeFi lending requires 150%+ collateralization because protocols can’t assess creditworthiness. This capital inefficiency limits lending to crypto-wealthy users while excluding the broader market that actually needs credit access.- No credit history exists for DeFi users across protocols
- Over-collateralization defeats the purpose of borrowing
- Lending behavior fragmented across wallets and chains
- Each protocol’s isolated credit model wastes behavioral data
- Traditional credit bureaus won’t integrate with DeFi
- On-chain behavior aggregates into comprehensive credit scores
- Interest rates reflect actual creditworthiness, not blanket rates
- Qualified borrowers access under-collateralized loans
- Every repayment improves scores across all protocols
- Privacy preserved while enabling risk-based lending
Professional & Education
Skill Certification for Technical Roles
The blockchain industry faces a skills verification crisis where traditional credentials fail to reflect actual capabilities. Self-taught developers can’t prove competencies while projects desperately need qualified contributors but waste resources on ineffective hiring processes.- Traditional degrees don’t cover blockchain technologies
- Each employer independently verifies skills through interviews
- Self-taught developers lack credible certification paths
- Geographic barriers prevent access to training institutions
- Resume fraud wastes hiring resources and delays projects
- Training providers issue verifiable skill attestations
- Actual capabilities verified rather than proxy credentials
- Global developers prove skills regardless of background
- Continuous skill updates reflect evolving technologies
- Cryptographic verification eliminates credential fraud