# Calculating EVM account integrity or "realness"

**URL:** <https://atlas.discourse.group/t/calculating-evm-account-integrity-or-realness/1216>\
**Category:** 1. Ideas & Brainstorming\
**Created:** [January 20, 2026, 12:01am UTC](https://atlas.discourse.group/t/calculating-evm-account-integrity-or-realness/1216 "2026-01-20T00:01:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smilingkylan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/atlas.discourse.group/smilingkylan/32/1135_2.png) [@smilingkylan](https://atlas.discourse.group/u/smilingkylan)\
**Post date:** [January 20, 2026, 12:01am UTC](https://atlas.discourse.group/t/calculating-evm-account-integrity-or-realness/1216/1 "2026-01-20T00:01:25Z")

</div>

As I start demoing my software to people I often come across the question: how do you prevent a malicious user from manipulating the triple position data to make their address look “trustworthy”? I am talking **aside from Intuition trust claims** (I’ll leave that for a whole different discussion)

Off the top of my head these are some relevant heuristics:

- Age of account’s first transaction
- Number of account transactions
- Balance of account
- Activity / balance on other chains (with same address)?
- NFT ownership(?)

I’m curious what other pieces of data could be used in heuristics to signal that an address is less or more trustworthy. Thoughts?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![billy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/atlas.discourse.group/billy/32/3_2.png) [@billy](https://atlas.discourse.group/u/billy)\
**Post date:** [January 20, 2026, 5:56pm UTC](https://atlas.discourse.group/t/calculating-evm-account-integrity-or-realness/1216/2 "2026-01-20T17:56:38Z")

</div>

- Linked accounts (Twitter, Discord, etc.) - the Sophia guys have the code for account linking if needed
- Reputation across those linked accounts
- Criteria used by sybil resistance products like Gitcoin Passport and Authena
- ‘Trust Circles’ - which can be derived from the above, and from Intuition attestations/reputation. I know you mentioned wanting to leave this for a separate convo, but IMO, this is ultimately how you prevent ‘manipulation’ - everything else is gamifiable and reductionist. And the ultimate form of this model is - you don’t have a single 'truth’ or ‘score’ for things → you have relative, subjective trust, where the trust is based on the perspective of the observer. For example, if I am not connected to anyone you’re connected to, and you’ve made an attestation, then it should be weighted far lower than if someone I have explicitly said that I trust has attested to something. There’s also a path here towards universal scores - wherein you look at an entity’s contextual reputation within the context being observed (say, Food) - and see if they have a high reputation in this context (based on the claims they’ve made / claims about them - super recursive, bc then you need to look at the reputation of the entities making the claims about them) - and then weight things according to this contextual reputation.