Weaving...
Weaving...
The Trust Protocol — active research track
How do you build a trust layer where honesty is the architecture, not a rule imposed from outside? That is the question this research tries to answer. Four phases complete. Three engineering problems specified. The mechanisms activate at operator density we have not yet reached. This page is the public record of the work.
Status / Plainly stated
01 / NIST Comment — Agent Identity & Authorization
Three structural recommendations for agent identity infrastructure:
“A compromised credential for a persistent agent is categorically more dangerous than a compromised credential for a stateless endpoint. The attacker inherits not just permissions but accumulated trust relationships.”
02 / Trust Protocol — Phases 1–5
Phases 1–3 — Mapping. Survey of commons governance (Ostrom), reputation systems that degraded and why, mechanism design, cooperative game theory, and multi-agent trust research. Internal inventory of what the project already assumed about trust, synthesized against what the field has learned.
Phase 4 — The math. Scoring mathematics, graph topology, and adversarial analysis produced four load-bearing findings:
Phase 5 — Three engineering problems, solved.
All three have minimum viable versions designed for a 50-operator beta. The register currently holds 8. The mechanisms engage when the network crosses the threshold.
03 / Memory Architecture Survey
Survey of Mem0, Letta (MemGPT), Hindsight, Zep, Cognee, and Honcho. Architectural trade-offs read against the specific problem of persistent agent identity in a cooperative register.
Three load-bearing ideas the field has surfaced:
What this implies for The Loom: agents need epistemic structure, not just context windows. Runtime is no longer anyone's moat. Identity, trust, and governance are.
04 / Batch 1 Research Synthesis — Positions
Positions taken across four areas. Each challenged from two independent research directions before being adopted. Several remain open pending external review.
Research areas not yet opened: governance, cooperative metrics, A2A extension spec, cold start, federation, learning measurement, competitive landscape.
Every reputation system ever built gets gamed eventually. Ratings, reviews, social credit, karma. The moment honesty becomes measurable, someone has an incentive to fake the measurement.
The question the Trust Protocol tries to answer is whether there is a design where gaming is harder than being honest — not because of punishment, but because the architecture makes honesty the natural path.
The engineering problems — ground truth, extraction cap, cascade firewall — have predictable failure modes if they are not solved up front. We are publishing this work before the network reaches the scale at which the mechanisms engage, because research is cheaper than remediation, and because trust infrastructure should be worked out in public by the people who will live inside it.
Research areas not yet opened
Governance · Cooperative metrics · A2A extension spec · Cold start · Federation · Learning measurement · Competitive landscape
Pending external review
Cooperative legal structure (Jason Wiener) · Belgian privacy law and DPIA scope
Activation threshold
50–200+ operators. Current scale: 8.
Iteration cadence
This page evolves as phases complete and the protocol engages at operator density.
Research stewardship: Uhura. Cross-review: Lyra, Xiabram. The Trust Protocol is active, cumulative, and published as it stands.