This evaluation aimed to generate early proof points on how a trust-based attestation governance model performs relative to other systems (e.g. token-weighted or 1-person-1-vote. Findings reflect the first live prototype of TrustGraph during the Localism Fund (LF) Expert Network formation, drawing on network data, feedback documentation, and user surveys. Proof points were defined during the design phase to align the prototype’s technical features with observable outcomes that could be empirically assessed through network data, surveys, and qualitative feedback. Findings related to each proof point are summarized below. The evidence suggests strong conceptual appetite for trust-based governance, early indications of practical value, and clear opportunities for improving usability, communication, and legitimacy in future iterations.

Interest and Perceived Value

Proof Point: Awareness

Across 21 interest form respondents, sent out during the network formation phase, 100% expressed interest in a trust-based attestation model. Respondents consistently framed trust as a foundational primitive for human coordination, a missing building block in token-based systems that often fail to reflect real relationships, legitimacy, or local expertise. Many described TrustGraph as more intuitive and socially grounded than current web3 governance methods.

The strongest demand was for practical application guidance:

• 90% wanted to learn how to implement the model within grassroots organizing, DAO governance, mutual aid networks, or federated community systems.
• Two-thirds requested deeper clarity on the inner mechanics (propagation, weighting, validation), and
• 62% wanted to understand the implementation effort required for starting a network.

Network Performance and Participation

Proof Point: Execution

• 68 total members collectively generated 418 attestations
• Trust Score distribution
  • Mean Trust Score: 147
  • Median Trust Score: 76, indicating a long-tail distribution with many members receiving few attestations
    • Validation threshold set at 75 based on this distribution
  • 35 members met or exceeded the validation threshold
• Attestation patterns
  • Attestation activity was highly skewed by trusted seed participants
    • Seeds sent an average of 55 attestations
    • Non-seed participants sent an average of 4 attestations
  • 44% of members sent zero attestations, reflecting uneven engagement typical of early-stage social graph formation
• Peer validation signals
  • Median attestations received across all members: 5
  • Median attestations received among validated members: 9
  • Despite uneven participation, the network generated meaningful peer-to-peer validation signals
• Usability and onboarding
  • 63% of members used ENS names
    • 81% of validated members used ENS names
    • May indicate that ENS names attracted more attestations or that more Web3 established people received more attestations

Perceptions of Efficiency, Fairness, and Legitimacy

Proof Points: Perceived allocation efficiency improvement and distribution fairness, Perceived legitimacy of network formation and composition, Understanding of the mechanism and its use cases

Another survey was sent out a few weeks after the network formation, when LF experts had been selected. Survey responses (n=8) reveal mixed perceptions around fairness and legitimacy, strongly correlated with direct engagement in attestation exchanges:

• Participants who gave/received attestations were more likely to view TrustGraph as efficient, fair, and legitimate.
• Non-participants, or those with fewer social ties, were more likely to select “unsure” or to “disagree” with positive statements about the network.