Thanks. With respect, I do understand. As it should be, trust is relative. Rankings in “my” web of trust will be different than rankings in yours. We can talk about how this should be implemented (I’d be honored to be included) but this doesn’t change my base arguments:

1: “quality of relationship” is HARD and (at best) will not be updated by people. Certainly not en mass.

2: “trust as a numeric scale” will likely NOT reflect an individuals “trustworthiness”, and may in fact be misleading if presented as such. 

3: quantifiable (even if some are relative to each user) and non linear (discrete variables that stand on their own) measures of trust can be used to achieve our goal. They might be numerous (and some undefined as yet) but they can be “easily understood” and because of this can be “trusted” by everybody to mean what they promise to mean.

Forgive my random thoughts. Wd love to converse more formally in this topic. How Nostr implements WOT may in fact be its downfall or it’s saving grace. Thank you. 

 @rabble @brugeman 
Here is a simple idea that could incorporate TrustNet and other WOT filter implementations. 

As per my rant above, I believe a “parent NIP” that defines an consistent UX and API (of sorts) for WOT filters (in clients) would be the best choice moving fwd. here’s a “top view” of how that could play out:

nostr:note1za8gapacw9l2r6eqxljpx478r8vgfsd3uxe3qkh7k424sc9nekssyevl7p