How scoring works

​

The idea

A TrustGate score is a read of behavior. Not of who someone says they are, not of what a contract claims to be, but of what an address has actually done onchain and what that pattern usually means. There are two lanes. One scores wallets, the other scores tokens and contracts. They look at different things, but they land in the same place: a tier, sometimes a number, a confidence level, and any flags worth raising. That shared output is what makes the signal easy to consume anywhere, whether you are checking a single address or ranking a whole feed.

​

What we believe about trust

A few principles shape every read. Behavior over identity. An address earns its standing through what it does over time, not through a badge, a follower count, or a form it filled out. Current, not frozen. Scores are living. They move as behavior moves, so a read reflects where an address stands now, not where it stood at some snapshot months ago. Earned, not bought. The patterns that lift a score are ones that are expensive to fake at scale and cheap to produce honestly. That asymmetry is the whole game. Hard to game on purpose. A read does not hinge on one number that an attacker can farm. It weighs several kinds of behavior together, so gaming one dimension does not move the result much on its own.

​

What goes into a read

At a high level, a wallet read looks at the depth and shape of its history, how long it has been active, what it has built and interacted with, and whether its activity looks human or automated. A token read looks at who holds it and how they got in, how it actually trades, and the standing of the wallet that deployed it. The Signals page goes through these by category. The Flags page covers the specific patterns that get raised on a read.

​

Interpretable, not reproducible

Here is the line, and it is deliberate. We tell you what we look at and what the output means. We do not publish the exact recipe, the precise weights, the timing windows, or the cutoffs. That is on purpose, because TrustGate is adversarial infrastructure. Users read these docs. Builders read these docs. And so do the people trying to beat the system. If the exact thresholds were public, they would stop being a trust signal and start being a checklist to game. This is the same posture mature anti-abuse systems take. A fraud tool will tell you a charge looks risky and why, in general terms. It will not hand an attacker the precise rule that flagged them. TrustGate works the same way: categories and meaning are public, the quantitative internals are not. So you can build on the signal with full confidence in what it represents, without us handing anyone a map to fake it.

​

What TrustGate is not

A few more things it deliberately is not. It uses no off-chain data, no personal data, and no KYC. There is no manual review deciding who is good and who is not. And counterparties are counted as part of an address’s own behavior, not propagated, so your standing is never inherited from whoever happened to transact with you. Your score is yours.

​

Go deeper