Been noticing something weird while building Intuition mcp.
The people you think you trust…
and the people you actually rely on…
aren’t always the same.
Example.
You might say you trust Billy.
But when it comes to a specific decision – say hiring a Solidity dev –
you don’t actually ask Billy.
You look at who Zet trusts.
So what does that mean?
You don’t just trust Billy.
You trust Billy in some contexts
and defer to someone else in others.
Now zoom out.
Most systems don’t capture this at all.
They assume:
→ trust is static
→ trust is universal
But in reality, trust is:
→ delegated
→ contextual
→ constantly shifting
Even we do this subconsciously.
You trust one friend for:
- tech advice
Another for:
- financial decisions
Another for:
- life stuff
Same brain.
Different “trust graphs”
So why are we still building systems that say:
“This person = trusted (0.91)”
While working on the Intuition MCP, this started clicking.
What we actually need isn’t:
a better score
It’s a way to model:
who you defer to – and when
Because that’s what trust really is.
Not just belief.
But delegation of judgment
Once you see it this way, a few things change:
-
Trust becomes directional
-
Trust becomes domain-specific
-
Trust becomes composable
And suddenly you can ask better questions:
-
Who do I defer to for smart contract reviews?
-
Who do they defer to?
-
Where does that chain end?
Now imagine agents working like this.
Instead of:
“Find me the most trusted dev”
They do:
“Follow Luda → Zet → Billy → and stop at the strongest dev signal”
That’s not ranking.
That’s navigating trust
Which makes me think:
Maybe the primitive isn’t “reputation”
Maybe it’s:
trust routing
Still early thoughts.
But it feels like we’re not just building trust systems…
We’re building decision pathways
Curious if others see it this way
Or if I’m overfitting what I’m seeing while building 