Reading through Lez’s NIP now. For comparison, mine is linked below.

Both NIPs define a format for contextual trust attestations without specifying how such attestations are processed and utilized. Both NIPs allow the rater to specify a score and a confidence, and allow to specify whether trust is transitive or not, with transitive the default.

The main difference between our NIPs is how exactly context is represented. In accordance with the tapestry method, my NIP allows each individual context to be defined and represented by an individual event, which anyone can submit, which is referenced using its note id or naddr. In addition, my NIP specifies how to organize contexts into a hierarchy. The rationale is that this allows the ontology of context to be curated by your WoT. What happens if we don’t all magically agree on the meaning of a “troll” or a “bot” or something else? We need to have competing definitions and let the community decide which definition to use — perhaps different definitions at different times. Although this may seem too complicated and too much work for the user, I believe it will actually turn out to be more intuitive, LESS WORK, and LESS COMPLICATED, because most of us will be happy to delegate all of the hard work to our WoT. In addition, ORGANIZING CONTEXTS INTO HIERARCHIES IS ESSENTIAL so that trust in a parent context can be applied automatically to all child contexts; if we don’t do that, it will be necessary to do separate attestations for parent contexts but also for each and every child context, the number of which is in theory unlimited, and this would be absolutely positively definitively 100 percent unworkable and fatal to the entire endeavor.

https://github.com/wds4/tapestry-protocol/blob/main/guides/grapevineIncorporation/NIP-proposal.md