Thank you. While discussing the social onboarding client we are working on, nostr:npub1san22nhe59ct8pstcehav4dtkf94lkn46ltl7d30g3zzl00tg7ussgqjdd suggested identity verification as a high priority. He drafted a document describing a signing procedure wherein individuals could cryptographically sign off on the validity of each others’ profile fields, for a PGP style distributed ranking system. We’re working on this. 

As I see, There could be multiple NIPs drafted for nostr’s WOT implementation, all working together under an API defined by a “WOT implementor NIP”.

Given that there MUST be multiple “layers” (some known some yet unknown) to trust and identity verification AND that all clients SHOULD be consistent in their “end user” presentation of trust rankings (a check or something), it makes sense to me that there should be a dedicated “WOT implementor NIP” just describing how this presentation should enfold and an API of sorts for various WOT ranking tools to “plug in” to. 

Each user could then choose the trust ranking tools that make sense to them. 

To your point, the ranking system COULD implement a 1-100 scale in the back end, with a “min threshold” settings for end users. (Though some WOT ranking tools may only output a simple Boolean) IMHO, the trust ranking presentation itself (in the UX) should be Boolean (trusted or not, for specific apps/use cases) and could be determined by the user’s “min threshold” setting. 

My random thoughts. But bottom line… WOT needs to at least be extendible and have a consistent UX defined by NIP.